Sequoia COO quit over Shaun Maguire's comments about Mamdani(ft.com)
ft.com
Sequoia COO quit over Shaun Maguire's comments about Mamdani
https://www.ft.com/content/8e6de299-3eb6-4ba9-8037-266c55c02170
141 comments
There's three names in that title, and none of them are explained in the tiny slice of an article that's free. Am I expected to just know who these random people are?
this seems like the relevant information:
>Sequoia Capital partner Shaun Maguire over racist, anti-Muslim remarks posted on social media.
> In a tweet about New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, Maguire said Mamdani “comes from a culture that lies about everything. It’s literally a virtue to lie if it advances his Islamist agenda.” Maguire later doubled down on his remarks and responded to public criticism with vague threats, writing to one individual critical of his remarks, “You may not know this… but I’ve been watching you.”
https://ca.cair.com/press-release/cair-calls-for-firing-of-s...
>Sequoia Capital partner Shaun Maguire over racist, anti-Muslim remarks posted on social media.
> In a tweet about New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, Maguire said Mamdani “comes from a culture that lies about everything. It’s literally a virtue to lie if it advances his Islamist agenda.” Maguire later doubled down on his remarks and responded to public criticism with vague threats, writing to one individual critical of his remarks, “You may not know this… but I’ve been watching you.”
https://ca.cair.com/press-release/cair-calls-for-firing-of-s...
> It’s literally a virtue to lie if it advances his X agenda
Replace "X" with "marketing" and you're back in the mainstream. Religions are all the same ultimately, no matter the idol they worship.
Replace "X" with "marketing" and you're back in the mainstream. Religions are all the same ultimately, no matter the idol they worship.
Shaun Maguire is a partner at Sequoia who has become an outspoken right-wing commentator online and large GOP donor. His recent comments that the Sequoia COO quit over was about the democrat front runner candidate for NYC Mayor, Zohran Mamdani.
This article has some details: https://www.businessinsider.com/shaun-maguire-sequoia-vc-gop...
> Following Trump's felony conviction last year, Maguire announced he'd back Trump in the 2024 election and would write his campaign a $300,000 check. In total, he donated about $800,000 to Republican causes last year, according to data from Open Secrets. Once Trump was elected, Maguire aided in the transition by interviewing candidates for positions in the defense department, The New York Times reported.
This article has some details: https://www.businessinsider.com/shaun-maguire-sequoia-vc-gop...
> Following Trump's felony conviction last year, Maguire announced he'd back Trump in the 2024 election and would write his campaign a $300,000 check. In total, he donated about $800,000 to Republican causes last year, according to data from Open Secrets. Once Trump was elected, Maguire aided in the transition by interviewing candidates for positions in the defense department, The New York Times reported.
It’s New Yorker shit
There’s a big fuss over a potential mayor of New York that has the right losing their minds. To the point where people are quitting over other peoples opinions. Truly bizarro world stuff.
There’s a big fuss over a potential mayor of New York that has the right losing their minds. To the point where people are quitting over other peoples opinions. Truly bizarro world stuff.
> To the point where people are quitting over other peoples opinions.
Isn't that rational? If you found that a colleague had views you found personally abhorrent AND you had the luxury of being able to walk away from the job, wouldn't you?
The tragedy of modern work life (and the current job market!) is that the vast majority of people do not have that luxury, and hence are stuck in the jobs they hate. But I expect the COO of a large VC probably has several lifetimes' worth of that luxury stashed away.
Isn't that rational? If you found that a colleague had views you found personally abhorrent AND you had the luxury of being able to walk away from the job, wouldn't you?
The tragedy of modern work life (and the current job market!) is that the vast majority of people do not have that luxury, and hence are stuck in the jobs they hate. But I expect the COO of a large VC probably has several lifetimes' worth of that luxury stashed away.
> Isn't that rational? If you found that a colleague had views you found personally abhorrent AND you had the luxury of being able to walk away from the job, wouldn't you?
I consider that to be immature and highly unprofessional.
It used to be that professionalism considered the realm of private opinion to have no bearing on whether you could work with someone. It also used to be that we might abhor your opinion but defend your right to say it. Now we cannot even work with someone who has impure opinions. Nor do we have any barrier between our private lives and work now, apparently.
I consider that to be immature and highly unprofessional.
It used to be that professionalism considered the realm of private opinion to have no bearing on whether you could work with someone. It also used to be that we might abhor your opinion but defend your right to say it. Now we cannot even work with someone who has impure opinions. Nor do we have any barrier between our private lives and work now, apparently.
It is entirely consistent to defend somebody's freedom of speech but then wish to dissociate from that person if their speech offends your sensibilities. This is just a variation on the old "freedom of speech" vs "freedom from consequences" / "freedom of reach" dichotomies.
Maybe the best option is, as you indicate, to use discretion when breaking the barrier between your private and work lives. However, airing your opinions on a public forum with your public identity largely precludes having such barriers.
Maybe the best option is, as you indicate, to use discretion when breaking the barrier between your private and work lives. However, airing your opinions on a public forum with your public identity largely precludes having such barriers.
Posting on twitter isn't "private life."
I do not see why "has the right to say something" and "everybody has to refuse to change their behavior towards this person in any way" are supposed to be the same thing.
I do not see why "has the right to say something" and "everybody has to refuse to change their behavior towards this person in any way" are supposed to be the same thing.
I didn't say you had to treat the person the same way; you might not like the guy and might not hang out with him. But part of professionalism is being able to work productively with people you strongly disagree with.
I simply don't agree in all circumstances.
Like seven or eight years ago I was at lunch at work with a sister team of ours. They had an intern who decided at lunch to announce that he was a fascist and that gay people were degenerates who were ruining society. Should the team have just said "huh that's quirky" and moved on? What of the gay people on the team who'd now be needing to work with somebody who openly thought that they were filth and expressed this at work?
Now instead of an intern, imagine that this was somebody's boss. Or the CEO. Is it really unprofessional to leave rather than choosing to work for and enrich somebody like that?
Like seven or eight years ago I was at lunch at work with a sister team of ours. They had an intern who decided at lunch to announce that he was a fascist and that gay people were degenerates who were ruining society. Should the team have just said "huh that's quirky" and moved on? What of the gay people on the team who'd now be needing to work with somebody who openly thought that they were filth and expressed this at work?
Now instead of an intern, imagine that this was somebody's boss. Or the CEO. Is it really unprofessional to leave rather than choosing to work for and enrich somebody like that?
I agree with this up to a point. If their shenanigans is making dealing with them even professionally unbearable, you owe it to yourself to determine whether that environment is worth staying in.
In this economy that’s a big AND…
People should either keep their opinions to themselves or not allow it to be tied to their corporation. If my employer was tied to shitbird comments like Sequoia is now, I'd quit also.
Wholeheartedly agree.
It’s foul on both sides. One for a partner to use that platform as a soap box for hate.
The other, having to deal with the fallout and just quitting. Ruining their flow and possibly upending their lives.
Standing up for what’s right sometimes costs you everything.
It’s foul on both sides. One for a partner to use that platform as a soap box for hate.
The other, having to deal with the fallout and just quitting. Ruining their flow and possibly upending their lives.
Standing up for what’s right sometimes costs you everything.
The opinion in this case is that Muslims are fundamentally bad people. They aren't disagreeing over tax policy or what to do with rent stabilized apartments in NYC.
Yeah, I'd prefer not to work with somebody with these bigoted beliefs.
Yeah, I'd prefer not to work with somebody with these bigoted beliefs.
>It’s New Yorker shit
Two of the three principals in this story are based in California and employed by a Californian firm.
Two of the three principals in this story are based in California and employed by a Californian firm.
No, you're expected to subscribe to the publication.
Sir, you posted this reply from a device that gives you instant access to all extant knowledge.
Thanks. The full page cookie consent with no "essential only" had me turning away from the article. No cookies are persistent in my browser but the lack of perceived choice is still irritating.
I recall Shaun Maguire trying to interfere with European politics, specifically supporting AfD in Germany. Instantly lost my admiration towards Sequoia, the image I previously had about them was something like calm, deeply analytical grown ups. Turns out they are into petty daily politics that will not go anywhere other than stir drama, at least this Shaun guy. Still feels bad when I think about it, disillusionment is painful.
If I had to classify the current era we're in, it'd be the "Age of the Edgelords".
An edge lord is being deliberately provocative for attention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgelord), but Shaun Maguire instead is just expressing his actual opinion, which is worse in my opinion.
Easy to be comfortable disagreeing when it doesn't affect you personally what happens with the positions you espouse.
I don't see how this is a tolerable situation when all of the cash is coming from islamic petrostates.
Looked at Shaun Maguire's twitter page and I find it appalling. Maybe I was naive about people in tech being more tolerant (as they both work with and build for diverse people).
That was previously the case from my perspective as well, but it seems to be rapidly changing.
I think there’s an argument that the pandemic era caused a lot of resentment in tech executives. They didn’t like employees having better negotiating power, resenting the pay increases and also things like support for BLM or trans rights, and stuff like RTO factored into that showing people who’s the boss. There was also a successful outreach attempt which went under the radar until Semafor published this:
https://www.semafor.com/article/04/27/2025/the-group-chats-t...
https://www.semafor.com/article/04/27/2025/the-group-chats-t...
Large amount of money simply shows what a person truly is. It enhances the personality that’s already there.
He's not in tech, he's in finance.
I note this "tolerance" seems to only go one way. Tolerance means supporting the people I like (e.g. "diverse" people), but it never seems to mean tolerating people I don't like. True tolerance is the reverse: tolerating people whose views you find abhorrent.
[deleted]
Maguire said that Mamdani "comes from a culture that lies about everything. It's literally a virtue to lie if it advances his Islamist agenda. The West will learn this lesson the hard way."
Maguire is a MAGA supporter, so the projection of lying is... interesting.
Maguire is a MAGA supporter, so the projection of lying is... interesting.
762236(2)
Islamophobia is like yesterday Judophobia but with way more benefits
For all of the worship these guys get for being mega geniuses, they sure say a lot of ignorant shit.
If we're talking about Sequoia, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find something more entertaining than this fawning puff piece on Sam Bankman-Fried
https://web.archive.org/web/20221027181005/https://www.sequo...
Highlights: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/101sjn2/imagine_b...
https://web.archive.org/web/20221027181005/https://www.sequo...
Highlights: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/101sjn2/imagine_b...
The real problem is that Sequioa is so well regarded, and they control so much money, it is really hard to criticize them. You could say, you have options as an public LP, but you also don’t.
One of the issues with folks like that, is that they often consider themselves to be "Übermensch," and thus, cannot be held to the same standards as others (I won't use the other "-mensch" term, because that would Godwin the discussion).
Not just really smart people. Very rich people (usually second-or-beyond-generation rich. First-generation rich folks aren't usually that way -unless they are polymaths).
They feel that they can say whatever the hell they want, and no one can hold them to account (and they are frequently correct).
Not just really smart people. Very rich people (usually second-or-beyond-generation rich. First-generation rich folks aren't usually that way -unless they are polymaths).
They feel that they can say whatever the hell they want, and no one can hold them to account (and they are frequently correct).
[deleted]
Apparently https://shaunmaguire.fyi - he's monstrous, to be curt, being a wealthy and powerful bigot:
- said some bigoted things on X about Islam (the entire religion) and
- some racist and culturally stereotyping / xenophobic / Islamophobic stuff by "[Mamdani is brown therefore he is XYZ culture which itself is a bad culture]" (my summary also from the X tweet) logic.
- said some bigoted things on X about Islam (the entire religion) and
- some racist and culturally stereotyping / xenophobic / Islamophobic stuff by "[Mamdani is brown therefore he is XYZ culture which itself is a bad culture]" (my summary also from the X tweet) logic.
How much of this zeitgeist is fueled by Elon’s ketamine dependency issues? Certainly non zero!
> Maguire, an outspoken and high-profile investor who is close to Elon Musk, wrote on X in July that New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani “comes from a culture that lies about everything. It’s literally a virtue to lie if it advances his Islamist agenda. The West will learn this lesson the hard way.”
Balbale complained to other senior partners at the firm, who declined to take action against Maguire, arguing he was just exercising his right to free speech, the people said. She left soon after, feeling her position was untenable.
If the same quote replaced 'Islamist' with another faith, would it have also been brushed off as "right to free speech"?
If the same quote replaced 'Islamist' with another faith, would it have also been brushed off as "right to free speech"?
Christians will always denigrate other faiths by stating all of the faithful adhere to a literal reading of those faith's religious texts, and claiming to adhere to a literal reading of their own religious texts while simultaneously denying all contradictions, appeals to violence, hate, and despotism found within.
[deleted]
> Christians will always denigrate
Kind of ironic to see this generalization and denigration of all Christians.
Kind of ironic to see this generalization and denigration of all Christians.
Islamism isn't a faith. Islam is a faith.
Islamism is also neither a 'culture' nor a reasonable characterization of Mamdani's political programme.
That is true but it must always be possible to crticize Islamism whereas the comment I was replying to was attempting to construct a taboo against it.
No it wasn't. It understood correctly that Maguire was making a deliberate conflation and treated it accordingly.
His program is actually pretty Christian imo.
mrnegrito(2)
inshard(7)
This dude really says some things without even analyzing how degressive they are; really tone deaf, pompous and disrespectful to large swaths of people. I mean, at least post this from your anime pfp alt account.
Some people have never heard “no” and it shows.
When I'm feeling down, I watch this Netflix engineer challenge Elon with a simple question and instantly feel better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJo-ulbIu8I
Still waiting for that "total rewrite" of Twitter.
Still waiting for that "total rewrite" of Twitter.
lol anyone with an anime pfp can likely just be doxxed through a sex offender registry.
These are all symptoms of a larger rot within society. Frankly I am a bit scared.
I think Elon is right about the idea of mind viruses. He just hasn't taken the premise far enough. All of us are infected by the algorithms around us, MAGA, Woke, MAHA ect. are all "mind viruses".
I doesn't matter how smart, compassionate, empathetic, creative or dynamic you are. As soon as you expose yourself to the algorithms you become infected. The more exposure the deeper the infection.
I doesn't matter how smart, compassionate, empathetic, creative or dynamic you are. As soon as you expose yourself to the algorithms you become infected. The more exposure the deeper the infection.
The idea that people are affected by their experiences is hardly novel. You don't need to dress it up as "mind viruses" and claim it is an "infection".
Yeah, sounds like parent is talking about "opinions" and "beliefs", something humans famously can't agree with one another about for as long as we've existed.
The tricky part is figuring out how to still collaborate and live side by side with people you vehemently disagree with.
The tricky part is figuring out how to still collaborate and live side by side with people you vehemently disagree with.
>The tricky part is figuring out how to still collaborate and live side by side with people you vehemently disagree with.
Super simple: both sides engage in good faith. If one sides fails to do so...well we are still exploring the proper solution to that.
Super simple: both sides engage in good faith. If one sides fails to do so...well we are still exploring the proper solution to that.
It's not experiences anymore, just engineered content.
What? Enough with the buzzy words. You are talking about ideas. And the more you stray from science and logic to justify your ideas, the more cognitive dissonance you will encounter.
Maybe don’t let assholes openly spout racist bigoted rhetoric.
They should have tossed him. They didn’t and now the way get to deal with the fallout of tacitly endorsing his positions.
They should have tossed him. They didn’t and now the way get to deal with the fallout of tacitly endorsing his positions.
As much trash as he talks, Maguire isn't entirely wrong.
I'm not sure this direct departure matters that much to Sequoia. The COO Balbale was an operating partner who was CMO of Sequoia for 2 years and then COO for another 2 years and to my understanding did not write checks. The real elephant in the room question was whether Balbale was in a role getting carry or not. If not, then that effectively isn't different from an incentive level than an associate with a higher salary (but no real skin in the game). If so, then that means that carry was actually given up and it probably means more.
In contrast, Maguire (like other partners at Sequoia who are actually writing checks) has skin in the game through the checks he writes and whether they pan out or they don't. In light of that, setting aside his views (which you may agree or disagree with politically), I view his controversy as being most likely a calculated marketing maneuver to improve or maximize the signal to noise in his deal flow. It's hard for me as an outsider to say whether that's working for him or not, but his track record suggests that he's not having problems with his deal flow as a result.
That said -- the material comment at the end of the article does make a lot of sense. While this departure may not affect Sequoia that much, Maguire's position may sour many of the Middle East sovereign wealth funds that form some of the largest parts of Sequoia's LP base. If their discontent with Maguire's rhetoric ends up being more important to them than Sequoia's returns, that may well pose a far more material issue to Sequoia and they will be forced to act.
In contrast, Maguire (like other partners at Sequoia who are actually writing checks) has skin in the game through the checks he writes and whether they pan out or they don't. In light of that, setting aside his views (which you may agree or disagree with politically), I view his controversy as being most likely a calculated marketing maneuver to improve or maximize the signal to noise in his deal flow. It's hard for me as an outsider to say whether that's working for him or not, but his track record suggests that he's not having problems with his deal flow as a result.
That said -- the material comment at the end of the article does make a lot of sense. While this departure may not affect Sequoia that much, Maguire's position may sour many of the Middle East sovereign wealth funds that form some of the largest parts of Sequoia's LP base. If their discontent with Maguire's rhetoric ends up being more important to them than Sequoia's returns, that may well pose a far more material issue to Sequoia and they will be forced to act.
Funding a seed stage VC with a record of picking winners like Sequoia is probably very easy even without the few sovereign wealth funds from the Middle East. Sequoia’s checks are mainly in the early rounds where the sizes are relatively smaller to series C+. The American university endowments would oversubscribe their rounds multiple times over.
That's a very good point, and there is probably enough appetite in the endowments (nevermind the other large LP archetypes such as pension funds, hospital systems, family offices, etc) to make up for any pullout.
To go one step further, I think I recall recently that Sequoia also moved to an evergreen RIA structure (as well as several other large funds such as a16z, Lightspeed, Thrive, etc), so that's even less of a concern and makes it possible for these firms to capture exits in the evergreen structure and recycle it into earlier stage funds.
Maybe I went overboard trying to soften how non-material this event really seems.
To go one step further, I think I recall recently that Sequoia also moved to an evergreen RIA structure (as well as several other large funds such as a16z, Lightspeed, Thrive, etc), so that's even less of a concern and makes it possible for these firms to capture exits in the evergreen structure and recycle it into earlier stage funds.
Maybe I went overboard trying to soften how non-material this event really seems.
> I view his controversy as being most likely a calculated marketing maneuver to improve or maximize the signal to noise in his deal flow. It's hard for me as an outsider to say whether that's working for him or not
why is it that tech bros will bend over backwards to find "good-faith" interpretations of the most obviously stupid shit. like bro have you literally never heard the phrase "confirmation bias"? you know it's possible he could just be a lucky idiot right?
> In an interview with the Caltech Heritage Project, Maguire reported that he earned a 1.8 GPA in high school and failed his Algebra 2 course, and that his admission to Stanford University depended on letters of recommendation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_Maguire
why is it that tech bros will bend over backwards to find "good-faith" interpretations of the most obviously stupid shit. like bro have you literally never heard the phrase "confirmation bias"? you know it's possible he could just be a lucky idiot right?
> In an interview with the Caltech Heritage Project, Maguire reported that he earned a 1.8 GPA in high school and failed his Algebra 2 course, and that his admission to Stanford University depended on letters of recommendation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_Maguire
After the sentence you quoted, what does the very next sentence say?
Lol that he has a PhD? So either you think
1. The fact that he cheated his way into Stanford is completely irrelevant when considering whether he cheated his way into Caltech
or
2. No dummies graduate PhD programs, even T10 PhD programs, just like no dummies are admitted to T10 BS programs
or both.
I hope you understand that one or both of these perspectives is either the height of naivety or more of that backbending work I was talking about before.
1. The fact that he cheated his way into Stanford is completely irrelevant when considering whether he cheated his way into Caltech
or
2. No dummies graduate PhD programs, even T10 PhD programs, just like no dummies are admitted to T10 BS programs
or both.
I hope you understand that one or both of these perspectives is either the height of naivety or more of that backbending work I was talking about before.
He has a PhD in /physics/ from Caltech, and that was before he became an extremely successful investor.
If I had the platform Maguire had, I'd likely it in a different direction. But I'm not him so who cares? He has achieved significant academic and professional outcomes not in spite of but likely because of the way he is.
Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they're an unaccomplished idiot no matter how gratifying and simplifying that would be. And I think it's really unfortunate that people let their resentment of others outside their tribe (and often their inability to perceive their tribal filters) get in the way of accurately perceiving reality as it is and not the way they wish it worked. It stunts their intellectual development and maturation into an adult, and I think it's just such a waste.
If I had the platform Maguire had, I'd likely it in a different direction. But I'm not him so who cares? He has achieved significant academic and professional outcomes not in spite of but likely because of the way he is.
Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they're an unaccomplished idiot no matter how gratifying and simplifying that would be. And I think it's really unfortunate that people let their resentment of others outside their tribe (and often their inability to perceive their tribal filters) get in the way of accurately perceiving reality as it is and not the way they wish it worked. It stunts their intellectual development and maturation into an adult, and I think it's just such a waste.
> He has a PhD in /physics/ from Caltech, and that was before he became an extremely successful investor.
so i guess you didn't read anything i wrote on that matter. ok.
so i guess you didn't read anything i wrote on that matter. ok.
Maguire has identified as Jewish, with ancestral ties to early Jewish settlers in California.