Greetings, and a warm welcome to **Regulator**, the dedicated newsletter crafted for *The Verge*’s discerning subscribers. In this publication, we delve into the high-stakes and often opaque world where technological ambition collides with political power—the realm in which the titans of Big Tech negotiate, clash, and sometimes conspire with the formidable forces of Big Government. By subscribing, readers receive a weekly chronicle of this influential battlefield, in which technology oligarchs and traditional political elites vie for supremacy, shaping the future of innovation, governance, and public influence alike.
Until just last week, only the most deeply embedded policy insiders—think specialized lobbyists, veteran reporters focused on regulatory developments, and ideological operatives positioned within right-wing power circles—had any substantive understanding of the extraordinary reach of **David Sacks’ influence within the Trump White House**. Among those aware, frustration simmered: many were alarmed that Sacks, a billionaire venture capitalist celebrated in Silicon Valley but criticized by traditional conservatives, was steering Donald Trump’s attention toward artificial intelligence policy while allegedly alienating portions of the MAGA base concerned about labor displacement and automation.
A meticulously researched *New York Times* exposé, released on Sunday, illuminated this dynamic even further. The article portrayed Sacks not merely as a tech entrepreneur-turned-public servant but as a man operating at the intersection of private capital and state power, wielding an astonishing network of financial interests. His dual roles—as podcaster and newly minted “special government employee”—were complicated by hundreds of undisclosed conflicts stemming from his sizable holdings in AI and cryptocurrency firms. Despite these ethical entanglements, he has nonetheless emerged as Silicon Valley’s most effective backchannel to the Trump administration.
To unpack the implications, I spoke with **Ryan Mac**, one of the *Times* reporters responsible for that remarkable piece of journalism. Our conversation explored how Sacks managed to ascend so swiftly within Trump’s orbit, why leading figures in the AI industry are rallying to protect his political foothold, and what unique factors have prevented opposition groups within the MAGA coalition from dislodging him. When it comes to discerning Silicon Valley’s psychological and cultural logic, Mac’s insight is unmatched. Many *Regulator* readers will recognize his name from his years chronicling the Valley’s power brokers—covering everything from **Peter Thiel’s lawsuit against Gawker** to **Elon Musk’s controversial acquisition of Twitter**. While Sacks’ overt bid for influence has startled Washington insiders, Mac notes that from a tech-world perspective, it epitomizes Silicon Valley’s reckless credo of “move fast and break things.” In essence, we are witnessing what transpires when technological magnates recognize that governmental decision-making itself can be “influenced” and, therefore, engineered.
Although I defer to Mac on the intricacies of the tech psyche, I claim some professional authority over what I call *the art of political clout farming*. From that vantage point, Sacks’ reaction to the *Times* article has been a case study in performative power defense. Despite never disputing the factual accuracy of the report, he has publicly threatened legal action, demanding that the publication retract or “abandon” its findings—acts that, in legal terms, lack any real enforceability. Yet Sacks has nonetheless retained a prominent defamation law firm to make such pronouncements on his behalf, simultaneously echoing familiar MAGA complaints about media bias to his followers on X. Ironically, each new post he publishes—and each supportive tweet from allied tech billionaires—only amplifies readership of the *Times* piece, reinforcing his portrayal as precisely what it suggests: a politically entangled tech billionaire wielding influence well beyond the Valley’s borders.
Not long ago, if asked to compile a quick list of the most politically consequential founders in the technology industry, few would have thought to include David Sacks. It’s not that his influence was insignificant, but rather that more dominant figures—**Peter Thiel** and **Elon Musk**, for instance—immediately captured public imagination. Sacks has indeed garnered fame via his popular *All In* podcast, and those tracing its lore may recall his appearances at the White House, his address at the Republican National Convention, or his role hosting a Trump fundraiser in 2024. Still, Thiel and Musk were celebrities long before Trumpism shaped modern politics, and any fleeting interaction between them and the former president reliably produced viral headlines and memes.
By comparison, Sacks is still cultivating his aura, endeavoring to ascend to that same mythic echelon of political-technological power. The journey toward matching their renown is, as yet, incomplete, but the intensity of his efforts underscores Silicon Valley’s evolving hunger for direct participation in government affairs.
Beyond the immediate drama surrounding Sacks, recent headlines offer further insight into the ever-expanding influence of technology on governance and culture. IBM CEO **Arvind Krishna**, for example, insists there is *no AI bubble*, arguing that the company’s heavy investments in projects such as Watsonx and quantum computing are poised for long-term returns. Meanwhile, journalist **Robert Hart** explores an unexpected moral dimension of the AI debate in “The race to AGI-pill the pope,” chronicling a group’s attempt to persuade the Vatican to treat technological existential risks with theological seriousness. In Washington, **Lauren Feiner** reports that a sweeping *nationwide internet age-verification initiative* is gaining Congressional traction, with Pinterest’s endorsement signaling broader corporate support. Elsewhere, **Elissa Welle** investigates a curious shortcoming of modern chatbots: *ChatGPT’s persistent inability to tell time accurately*. In climatological news, **Justine Calma** explains how the U.S. narrowly avoided catastrophic hurricanes during a turbulent fiscal season. And finally, **Hayden Field** profiles a nine-person task force at Anthropic charged with the immense responsibility of preventing AI-driven catastrophe.
As the *Regulator* interview with Ryan Mac illustrates, these scattered developments coalesce into a broader theme—one that defines our era of overlapping technological innovation and political evolution. Every shift in code or capital seems now to reverberate within the corridors of power, revealing both the aspirations and anxieties of our digital moment.
Sourse: https://www.theverge.com/column/836932/david-sacks-new-york-times-white-house
