Democrats Probe David Sacks’ Role: Breaking Government Employee Rules

Under current law, a person classified as a Special Government Employee is allowed to serve in a temporary or part-time capacity while holding other jobs or private sector roles. A key restriction is that SGEs generally may not exceed 130 days of service in any 365-day period. This cap is intended to limit potential conflicts of interest when someone serves both government duties and private business interests. Additional ethics rules apply depending on how long an SGE serves. For instance, after 60 days of service, SGEs are subject to stricter disclosure and conduct requirements that resemble those for full-time federal employees.

In the letter to Sacks, Warren and her colleagues raise several pointed questions. They first ask whether he has exceeded the 130-day limit for SGEs and request him to provide how many days he has worked in his government role, and if those days were counted correctly and in compliance with the legal definition of “days worked.” They also inquire about waivers given by the White House that allow Sacks to keep certain private investments even while influencing policy in related fields, seeking information about when these waivers were issued and what conditions apply.

The letter further asks for clarification on what investments Sacks still holds through his venture firm, Craft Ventures, especially in AI or crypto firms that might be affected by government policy, and on the timing of any divestments. Finally, the senators demand disclosure of documents showing compliance with ethics laws, the timing of divestments, and any communications or decisions that might have involved private interests benefitting from government policy.

Parallel to these questions, lawmakers have introduced the SGE Ethics Enforcement & Reform Act of 2025, known as the SEER Act, which aims to tighten ethics rules and transparency around SGEs. The proposed legislation would make ethics rules more strictly applicable to SGEs starting on their 61st day of service, and rules on outside compensation would become stricter after the 130th day. It would require that any waiver or exemption from conflict-of-interest rules be approved by the Office of Government Ethics and made publicly available through a searchable database within 14 days.

The act would also impose restrictions on SGEs who own or lead large firms, such as those worth over one billion dollars or with significant federal contracts, preventing them from officially communicating with agencies that regulate or contract with their companies. In addition, it would improve transparency about who is classified as an SGE, why they are classified as such rather than as full-time federal employees, how many days they serve, and their financial disclosures.

If Sacks has exceeded the 130-day threshold or failed to fully divest or disclose relevant financial ties, several ethical and legal questions arise. A key concern is the risk of conflict of interest, since an SGE with private sector investments or financial exposure to the sectors they regulate or advise in may benefit personally from policies they help shape.

Another concern is the impact on public trust and accountability, since transparency about financial disclosures, waivers, and accurate accounting of service days is central to maintaining faith in governance. There is also the question of precedent, because how Sacks’ case is handled could set a standard for how SGEs are regulated in future administrations, particularly in fast-moving fields like artificial intelligence and digital assets.

Observers will now watch whether David Sacks replies with detailed documentation showing compliance with day limits and ethics waivers, and whether the Office of Government Ethics or the Inspector General publishes independent assessments. Attention will also focus on whether the SEER Act gains traction toward becoming law, which could narrow ethics loopholes and impose stricter oversight on individuals serving in part-time government roles.

Senator Warren’s letter compels David Sacks to clarify whether his service as an SGE is fully in line with existing legal limits and ethical norms. At the same time, the proposed SEER Act seeks to strengthen rules and transparency for all who serve in similar roles. As questions unfold, the case highlights the tension between drawing expertise from private industry and ensuring that ethical safeguards remain intact in public policy.