

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"They are losing, and they know it. Election officials will not be intimidated," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
US Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin on Friday threatened state election officials with prison time if they do not comply with the Trump administration's "mandatory" changes to how they run their elections.
During a press conference, Mullin said that the Trump administration was making so-called "security enhancements" to US elections "mandatory," adding that any uncooperative states will be penalized.
"If these states want a grant and they want to be reimbursed to run federal elections, they're going to have to implement security issues," Mullin said. "We're saying that your [voting] machines have to be secured and that your voter registration list needs to be scrubbed."
Later in the press conference, Mullin elaborated further on penalties states could face if they didn't "scrub" their voter rolls to the administration's specifications.
"The states that choose... not to participate in securing the elections, we will make sure we make those states a priority to look into who voted in their states, and hold then the election officials accountable," he said. "If the election officials, once we gave them the information they need to secure their elections, and they chose not to, then those individuals can also be held accountable."
Mullin added that this accountability can come "by fines, by penalties, and even, depending on how far it goes, prison time."
Mullin says that election officials in states that don’t cooperate with the Trump administration may face jail time pic.twitter.com/FvIaKmTEdc
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 17, 2026
Article 1, Section 4 of the United States Constitution explicitly gives states the power to run their own elections, while granting the US Congress the authority to implement federal regulations if needed.
The executive branch of the federal government is given no role in the administration and regulation of elections.
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom reacted to Mullin's threats of jail time for election officials with defiance.
"California has free, fair, and secure elections and we will fight for them," Newsom wrote in a social media post. "Try us."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) similarly vowed to fight the administration's efforts to meddle in the elections.
"They are losing, and they know it," Schumer wrote. "Election officials will not be intimidated. Senate Democrats will make sure resources are in place to fight back against any illegal activity by the Trump administration."
Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) warned that Mullin's Friday statements appear to be an escalation in the administration's tactics.
"First, they sent the FBI to seize ballots in Georgia," he wrote. "Then, they tried to get data on election workers in Fulton County. Now, they’re threatening to imprison election officials. This is escalating quickly. Every single American should be alarmed."
Government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington also indicated it would file legal challenges to the administration's efforts to take over the elections process.
"The Constitution gives states, not the federal government, the power to administer elections," the group wrote. "That's for a good reason, but the Trump admin keeps trying and failing to grab power anyway. We're fighting back in court."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, expressed skepticism that the Trump White House's election meddling would be successful.
The Department of Homeland Security "has literally zero power to do this," Reichlin-Melnick wrote. "The Trump admin has lost every single lawsuit on their efforts to get state voter data or change voter requirements. The power to administer elections is given to the states."
Historian Patrick Wyman similarly predicted the administration's efforts would end in failure.
"They’re going to threaten this stuff, they’ll ham-fistedly screw up the implementation, commit seven atrocities, and still lose every election that matters in November," Wyman wrote. "We’re now nearing the 'fuck you, do it, see what happens' stage of this confrontation."
The question before us in California is not complicated. Are we going to stand with the three million people—our friends and neighbors—about to lose their health care, or with the billionaire class that would rather we looked away?
There are more billionaires in my district and the surrounding area than almost any other Member of Congress. Within fifty miles of my district sits nearly a third of the entire American stock market—over $20 trillion in value—and five companies worth more than a trillion dollars each. For years, I have fought for fairness in our tax policy. If America has been good to you, you must do good for America.
There are 938 billionaires in America. Together they are worth $8.2 trillion. The bill I wrote with Bernie Sanders asks them for 5 percent every year.
This is a simple tax on wealth. Every year, this tax evaluates the total value of a billionaire’s holdings, their stock, their companies, their real estate, and taxes 5 percent of it. Not their income, which they have arranged to be almost nothing. The wealth itself. The same way a family pays property tax on a house whether or not they sell it. We conduct this assessment on individual’s estates already when they die.
This billionaire wealth tax will raise $4.4 trillion over a decade. This is enough to establish a $60,000 salary floor for every public school teacher in America, cap child care at 7 percent of a family’s income, and restore the $1 trillion stripped from Medicaid and the ACA, with a $3,000 check left over for every household under $150,000.
California legislators have proposed a state tax to target similar excessive wealth. A proposition on the November ballot would levy a one-time 5 percent tax on the wealth of the state’s 250 billionaires. Accrued over 5 years, it would raise $100 billion to save health care for 3 million Californians. I am backing it.
Opposing these landmark taxes, Governor Newsom has suggested a “minimum income tax”. The focus of this tax is billionaires’ reported income, as well as the loans they take out to live on. An income tax, not a wealth tax. That is the problem. Newsom goes after that income, but billionaires have very little. Most take no salary at all. They borrow against their stock, live on the loans, and pass the fortune to their children without ever selling a share. The wealth underneath goes untouched.
Bernie and I tax the wealth itself, and our bill raises $4.4 trillion. Newsom’s tax on these borrowed assets only raises 1/44th of that. That’s why the tech oligarchs support Newsom’s proposal. They hope they can trick folks into making the issue go away.
Same billionaires, forty-four times the revenue from Bernie and I’s proposal compared to Newsom’s.
Tax what they own, not what they report.
I was criticized for the bill, as well as my support of California’s proposed Billionaire Tax. Many said that the wealth flight from California would devastate our economy. They were wrong. In Q1 of 2026, California received more venture capital investment than the rest of the country combined. Then the billionaires spent millions propping up my primary challenger. He received 6 percent of the vote.
And the tax should not stop at billionaires, it must reach centimillionaires. The tax has to reach all fortunes $50 million and up, and one already does. Every year it has been introduced, I have cosponsored the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act. It starts at $50 million: 2 percent a year on wealth above that line, And it reaches the money inside irrevocable trusts, taxed to the grantor who set them up. Moving a fortune into a trust should not take it off the books from a wealth tax.
Supporters are right to call the fight in California the reverse Proposition 13 of our generation. In 1978, California voted for Prop 13 to cap property taxes, and that anti-tax revolt carried Ronald Reagan to the presidency two years later. This is that revolt in reverse: instead of capping taxes on property, we are taxing the extreme wealth at the top. This is a philosophical fight, and California is the test case for the nation.
So the question is not complicated. Are we going to stand with the three million Californians about to lose their health care, or with the billionaire class that would rather we looked away? Are we the party of working people, or just the party of the donor class? Are we going to return to the party of FDR, or keep telling ourselves we need to do what the donors want?
Are we willing to tax extreme wealth, or only willing to talk about it?
I know my answer. We cannot have a nation where 938 people grow $1.5 trillion richer in a year while a teacher in my district takes a second job to cover rent.
“In November, California voters will at last have a chance to make billionaires pay their fair share," said the coalition behind the proposal.
It's official: The proposed California Billionaire Tax Act, which last week was certified for November's election, has a ballot designation—Proposition 40.
"The people of California now have the opportunity to decide what kind of future they want,” Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) vice president Debru Carthan said on Thursday.
“Proposition 40 asks a simple question: At a time when hospitals are reducing services, working families are being squeezed, and essential services are under attack, should a few hundred billionaires contribute their fair share to protect the state that helped make their extraordinary wealth possible?" Carthan asked. "We believe Californians will answer with a resounding yes."
Drafted by SEIU-UHW, Prop 40 would impose a one-time 5% levy on people worth $1 billion or more, to be paid in annual installments of 1% over five years.
It’s official! The billionaire tax will be on the ballot as Prop 40. This November, Vote YES on Prop 40 to ensure billionaires pay their fair share to keep hospitals and ERs open. #BillionaireTaxNow
[image or embed]
— Billionaire Tax Now (@billionairetaxnow.bsky.social) June 30, 2026 at 1:31 PM
The bil would require the state to spend 90% of revenue from the tax on healthcare and the rest on food assistance and public education. Proponents say the tax would raise roughly $100 billion in revenue. Critics argue that it could drive wealthy residents and investment from California and stall economic growth.
Prop 40 supporters include the Teamsters union and progressive groups like the California Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and Our Revolution, as well as individual progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Democratic congressional candidate Connie Chan, who is running to replace retiring longtime San Francisco Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
The measure is opposed by Republicans, business groups, the Democratic Party, and even some progressives, including Chan's opponent, state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11).
Prop 40's most prominent Democratic opponent is California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whom critics accuse of trying to bamboozle voters with his recently unveiled plan for a national billionaire income tax. Some observers skeptical of the presumed 2028 presidential hopeful contend that his support for an income tax is rooted in knowledge that very rich people actually have relatively little income when compared with their investments and other assets.
Some progressive groups opposing Prop 40—including the California Teachers Association (CTA) and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California—point out that it is a one-off tax on wealth, not income. CTA is backing a separate ballot measure, the Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act, which would permanently extend Proposition 55, California’s existing high-income-earner tax, which is set to expire in 2030.
In response to Thursday's ballot designation, Billionaire Tax Now said in a statement that "the measure qualified for the ballot after supporters submitted more than 1.6 million signatures from Californians across the state—nearly twice the number required to qualify—making it one of the strongest citizen-led ballot qualification efforts in California history."
"Voters consistently support the billionaire tax by large, double-digit margins," the coalition continued. "For healthcare workers who have dedicated their lives to caring for patients, today’s news isn’t just welcome, it’s critical. With no other viable alternatives proposed by Gov. Newsom, the billionaire tax is the only available option to stop a cascade of hospital and clinic closures spurred by massive federal cuts in HR 1, known as President [Donald] Trump’s so-called 'Big, Beautiful Bill.'"
"In November," Billionaire Tax Now added, "California voters will at last have a chance to make billionaires pay their fair share to help prevent widespread hospital closures, through a commonsense ballot initiative that places a one-time 5% tax on the wealth of approximately 200 billionaires who reside in the Golden State."
"Pretending to propose his own national solution is clearly a cynical smoke screen to let California billionaires off the hook," argues the Billionaire Tax Now campaign as it seeks to counter "5 tricks" being deployed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies.
Campaigners behind the one-time 5% billionaires wealth tax in California are calling out what they describe as trickery and deception by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who on Friday released a proposal for a national billionaire's income tax even as he actively opposes the effort to tax the wealth of billionaires in the state that he and his party currently control.
"Newsom does not want to tax billionaires," said the Billionaire Tax Now campaign in a statement, "but he wants you to think he does."
As Common Dreams reported Friday, critics of Newsom warn that the governor thinks "he can fool everyone" with his proposal for a national tax on the income of billionaires while simultaneously opposing a wealth tax headed for a referendum vote in November designed to fill a massive healthcare funding gap in the state created by the budget bill passed by Republicans and signed by President Donald Trump last year.
While the so-called "One, Big Beautiful Bill" offered another windfall tax giveaway to super-wealthy individuals and corporations, it eviscerated funding for healthcare and other key social programs nationwide.
The Friday statement from the coalition behind the campaign, headed by SEIU—United Health Wealth, details "5 tricks" that Newsom has already deployed in order to fool voters about the wealth tax in California while concealing what they say are "his real motivations: to continue giving billionaires tax breaks at the expense of working people."
According to the group:
TRICK 1: Pretend to take on billionaires while really giving them a pass.
Over his many months of plainly attempting to sink the California billionaire tax, Governor Newsom has made it clear that he is more interested in protecting billionaires than working people. A federal billionaire tax has already been proposed by US Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna—and while you don’t need to be a political insider to know it would require a profound reshaping of Congress to pass that bill, Newsom has nonetheless failed to endorse it.
TRICK 2: Conveniently say that a federal, not state-based solution is the best way forward on this issue—despite having supported state-based policy solutions in the past.
Pretending to propose his own national solution is clearly a cynical smoke screen to let California billionaires off the hook. It’s just a PR tactic to give himself more cover to oppose the California Billionaire Tax. The Governor has supported state-based solutions to federally-created policy problems in the past—just conveniently not this state-based solution, which would involve a 5% tax on about 200 Californian billionaires who hold $2.2 trillion in wealth to save lives and keep hospitals open.
TRICK 3: Attempt to divide support by saying the California Billionaire Tax is bad policy for not fixing every problem in the state.
It’s pretty simple: the California Billionaire Tax is a direct response to the healthcare cuts facing our state, so the funding goes to healthcare. 90% of funds will prevent ER and hospital closures, and 10% will go toward food assistance and public education.
No, the funding will not go toward housing, 911 operators, and other public services the Governor listed out to try to generate additional opposition—just the massive $100 billion healthcare crisis that is putting patient lives at risk. The fact that this measure doesn’t fix every problem in the Governor’s budget is a problem for the Governor, not a problem with the proposal itself.
TRICK 4: Spread misinformation about the California Billionaire Tax’s impact on Planned Parenthood.
The Governor is hoping you don’t know that the massive federal healthcare cuts in Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” gutted funding for California’s Planned Parenthood clinics and that the California Billionaire Tax is the only viable way to generate the funding needed to save this critical reproductive healthcare. Luckily, frontline healthcare workers, including those who work at Planned Parenthood clinics, along with actual Planned Parenthood patients have been hard at work spreading the truth to voters across the state.
TRICK 5: Falsely claim that “one stakeholder” is driving the California Billionaire Tax.
Governor Newsom continues desperately trying to make the California Billionaire Tax sound fringe, when in fact voters consistently support the tax by double-digit margins. The Billionaire Tax Now coalition has a growing army of more than 5,000 volunteers, and submitted over 1.6 million signatures—more than double the number needed to qualify for the ballot. The tax is supported by elected officials including US Senator Bernie Sanders Representative Ro Khanna, and Senator Chris Murphy, and community and labor groups including Teamsters California, AFSCME California, CIR, UNITE HERE Local 11 and Local 30, AFT Local 1521, Oxfam America, Our Revolution, CA, Color of Change, and Democratic Socialists of America–CA. Does that sound like “one stakeholder”?
The launch of Newsom's proposal for a national income tax, his team acknowledged, comes as the governor considers a run for president in 2028.
Citing the threat of capital flight and billionaires fleeing California for states with friendlier tax codes, Newsom argues that the fight for a tax on the super-rich "belongs at the federal level, where this broken system was created in the first place."
However, as the campaign behind the state-level tax points out and studies have shown, the mythical threat of the wealthy packing their bags has been shown to be largely that—threats and a myth.
Nadia Rahman, an activist and organizer in San Francisco, was among those urging people not to be duped by the Newsom's position on the California ballot initiative.
"Do not be fooled," Rahman warned. "Newsom is an avowed incrementalist pitching a “national billionaires tax” to have something to deflect to when he runs for president and is questioned about why he worked so hard to kill the wealth tax in his home state of California in his final act as Governor."
"The misdirect here is that Newsom is opposing a WEALTH tax on billionaires in his own state and insisting he supports a new national INCOME tax on billionaires. But billionaires make money off non-income sources."
Critics say that Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom is trying to trick voters with his new plan for a national billionaire income tax, while simultaneously opposing a tax on billionaire wealth in his own state.
Along with a coterie of wealthy donors, Newsom has long stressed that he is adamantly opposed to the statewide plan to institute a one-time 5% tax on the total wealth of those in the state with more than $1 billion to fund healthcare, education, and food assistance programs, which has been spearheaded by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW).
But a day after the measure was certified to appear on voters' ballots, Newsom—who is expected to run for president in 2028 and face an electorate that is angrier than ever about the outsized wealth and power of the billionaire class—unveiled a new national proposal that, at least on the surface, seems to hit many of the same populist notes as the one in California.
It's time for a national billionaires tax and a new social contract.
10% of Americans own two-thirds of the wealth. Wages have stagnated. The cost of living has skyrocketed.
The system is fundamentally broken.
The federal tax code, a corporate code, and an inheritance code… pic.twitter.com/tLRbUId6yi
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 26, 2026
"Last night, it became certain that a wealth tax would be placed on the November ballot in California. I’m voting no," he explained in a Substack post, in which he rehashed many of his previous objections—including the factually dubious idea that a wealth tax would supposedly lead to mass capital flight from the state. He also said the plan to spend most of the revenue on healthcare neglects other needs like housing, childcare, and public safety.
As an alternative, he proposed what he referred to as "a national billionaires’ tax. A true minimum tax on billionaires and those with a net worth of over $100 million."
When counting unrealized wealth gains as income, America’s richest billionaires actually pay lower effective tax rates than the average American. A 2025 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) estimated that the richest 400 Americans paid about 24% of total income in taxes from 2018-20, compared with 30% for the public as a whole.
"That system is the result of decades of loopholes written by lobbyists and upheld by politicians who knew exactly who they worked for," Newsom said. "The wealthy have their own private tax code full of loopholes and exemptions that most people have never heard of, and they’re counting on politicians in Washington to maintain it and keep quiet."
Referencing an idea from the Obama era, Newsom described his plan as "a modern Buffett Rule—that ensures the people at the very top pay at least the tax rate their own workers pay."
While he did not elaborate on what rate he'd plan to charge the wealthiest Americans, the original 2012 Buffett Rule would have required that millionaires pay a minimum effective tax rate of 30% of their adjusted gross income (AGI), which includes things like capital gains and other sources of income that are normally taxed at lower rates.
One might assume that such immense wealth translates into equally enormous tax payments.
It doesn't.
According to a study we have just completed, California's billionaires pay only 0.07% of their wealth each year in California income tax—representing barely 0.2% of the state's… pic.twitter.com/87W7y67sXh
— Gabriel Zucman (@gabriel_zucman) June 26, 2026
While Newsom had borrowed the "billionaire tax" branding of California's popular proposal, critics pointed out that he was proposing something vastly weaker.
"Read his Substack post carefully," implored Lever editor-in-chief David Sirota in a social media post. "He’s talking about income taxes and closing a few loopholes, but not a national version of the WEALTH tax on the ballot in California."
"The misdirect here is that Newsom is opposing a WEALTH tax on billionaires in his own state and insisting he supports a new national INCOME tax on billionaires," Sirota said. "But billionaires make money off non-income sources."
Gabriel Zucman, a French economist who has championed the wealth tax measure in California, has said this critical distinction between wealth and income is the reason why a wealth tax in California is needed to begin with.
"California's billionaires now hold $2.3 trillion in wealth—equivalent to roughly half of California's [gross domestic product] and about 10% of US GDP," he said. "One might assume that such immense wealth translates into equally enormous tax payments. It doesn't."
Citing a NBER working paper from last month, Zucman pointed out that "California's [top four] billionaires pay only 0.07% of their wealth each year in California income tax" while billionaires as a whole represent "barely 0.2% of the state's total tax revenue," meaning that they "contribute a negligible amount to the state that made them rich."
He noted that Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page—who have publicly opposed the billionaire's tax and, in Brin's case, spent tens of millions of dollars trying to stop it—reported no taxable income in 2019, 2020, and 2023 because all of their wealth was held in company stock. Since they didn't sell any stock during those years, they had no capital gains and therefore owed no income tax.
In the meantime, Zucman noted, "their fortunes have increased by more than $400 billion" since 2019.
🚨NEW: @RoKhanna suggests @GavinNewsom is trying to block a billionaire tax in order to protect big donors.
"Why would you want to side with 250 billionaires over the working class? The only reason...is because you care about 250 people's contributions." pic.twitter.com/mg9kHPGSa2
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) June 23, 2026
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—another potential 2028 presidential candidate who introduced his own federal billionaire wealth tax legislation in March with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—has vocally questioned Newsom's opposition to the ballot measure in California.
"Why would you want to side with 250 billionaires over the working class in California?" he asked earlier this week on a podcast hosted by Sirota. "The only reason, in my view, to not be taxing them is because you care about these 250 people's contributions to the political system."
Sirota speculated that Newsom's motivation behind co-opting and watering down the "billionaire tax" concept was much the same.
He said, "This is Newsom thinking he can fool everyone and going to bat for billionaire donors who could fund his presidential campaign."
"The fact that the ultra-wealthy and billionaire-backed politicians like Gov. Newsom nearly succeeded in killing it is the single best argument for why we need to tax billionaires in the first place."
Organizers said late Thursday that a proposed one-time wealth tax on California billionaires has been certified to appear on state ballots in November, advancing despite efforts by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and billionaire-funded groups to tank the measure ahead of the June 25 deadline.
"Today we’re making it clear that we aren’t backing down–the billionaire tax will be on the ballot this November, and we intend to win,” said Debru Carthan, a radiologic technologist and spokesperson for Billionaire Tax Now, the healthcare union-led coalition leading the ballot initiative.
If approved by California voters, the proposal would tax billionaires' wealth at a rate of 5%, raising an estimated $100 billion to shore up the state's healthcare system amid devastating federal cuts to Medicaid. Revenue from the tax would also be used for food aid and education, according to the initiative's text.
Last week, organizers offered to withdraw their proposal if Newsom agreed to push a 2% tax on billionaire wealth in California's Legislature. Newsom, who is widely seen as a 2028 presidential hopeful, rejected the compromise and privately told a major Democratic donor that he was confident the billionaire tax would not appear on California's ballot in November.
Organizers emphasized Thursday that despite Newsom's opposition and fearmongering from billionaires and other opponents, the proposed tax is popular among California voters, who are facing an affordability crisis as the wealthiest see their fortunes soar. From 2023 to 2025, the wealth of California billionaires surged by 144%, according to a recent paper co-authored by leading economists.
"Voters consistently support the billionaire tax by large, double-digit margins, and the growing campaign has brought on thousands of volunteers," organizers said in a statement. "Supporters of the measure submitted over 1.6 million signatures, more than double the number needed to secure a spot on the general election ballot."
To succeed, proponents of the billionaire tax must secure enough votes to pass their initiative while also defeating separate ballot measures that would effectively cancel out the wealth levy. One of the competing initiatives was pushed by a group bankrolled by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who has spent tens of millions of dollars trying to defeat the billionaire tax and who left California in late 2025 to avoid the potential levy.
The competing ballot measures—the Retirement and Personal Savings Protection Act of 2026 and the Improving Transparency, Effectiveness, and Efficiency in California Government Act of 2026—are titled in ways that could lead some voters to support both the wealth tax and proposals that would counteract it.
Igor Volsky, director of the Tax the Greedy Billionaires campaign, said in a statement that "when billionaires can erase democratic initiatives that threaten their fortunes, they have too much power."
"The fact that the ultra-wealthy and billionaire-backed politicians like Gov. Newsom nearly succeeded in killing it is the single best argument for why we need to tax billionaires in the first place," Volsky added.
US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a vocal supporter of the proposed billionaire wealth tax, said Thursday that "this issue couldn’t be more simple."
"There are 250 billionaires in a state of 40 million people," said Khanna. "What we’re saying is, tax these 250 billionaires so that millions of Californians can have healthcare."
"You have chosen to protect California's billionaires at the expense of Californians' health," said Gabriel Zucman.
A world-renowned economist and expert on wealth inequality castigated California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday for working to kill a proposed tax on billionaire fortunes in the Golden State, warning that the Democratic leader and likely 2028 candidate appears bent on handing President Donald Trump "an unexpected ideological and political victory."
Gabriel Zucman, a research professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, pointed to a recent Bloomberg story detailing Newsom's "last-ditch pressure campaign" to prevent a healthcare union-led initiative from appearing on California voters' ballots in November. Last week, organizers announced that they had collected the number of signatures required to get the initiative—a one-time, 5% tax on the wealth of California billionaires—on the ballot ahead of the June 25 deadline.
In a lengthy thread posted to X on Monday, Zucman wrote that he is "shocked" by Newsom's "efforts to defend Peter Thiel and Mark Zuckerberg at the expense of Californians' health," referring to two of the state's most prominent billionaires. Thiel has donated millions to an industry group looking to defeat the ballot initiative, which would use revenue from the wealth tax to offset the impacts of federal Medicaid cuts approved last year by Trump and congressional Republicans.
"Yet you are now devoting all your energy to preventing this ballot initiative from taking place and denying Californians the opportunity to express their democratic will this November," Zucman wrote. "You have chosen to protect California's billionaires at the expense of Californians' health."
By stridently opposing the proposed billionaire tax in California, the economist warned, Newsom is lending credence to "familiar conservative arguments against taxing great fortunes: the threat of capital flight, tax avoidance, harm to growth, etc."
"Instead of reinforcing these arguments, you could have chosen to challenge them. Take the risk of tax flight, a classic objection. It is effectively nonexistent," Zucman wrote. "Beyond the ideological victory you risk handing Trump, you may also be giving him a political victory."
Politically, Zucman warned Newsom that his opposition to the proposed wealth tax—which has proven extremely popular among likely Democratic voters—risks giving Trump and his right-wing allies a political victory by blunting momentum for a wealth tax not only in California, but beyond as well.
"If the 'Yes' prevails, California's tax could quickly inspire similar efforts in other states," Zucman argued. "Ultimately, that process could pave the way for a federal tax on extreme wealth. This is precisely what happened more than a century ago with the progressive income tax."
"The world is watching," the economist added. "In the struggle between democracy and oligarchy, one must choose a side. I hope you will choose ours."
Zucman has been outspoken in support of the proposed wealth tax in California, writing in The New York Times' op-ed pages last month alongside fellow economist Emmanuel Saez that the proposed levy would "be tiny relative to billionaires’ recent wealth gains."
"In the past three years alone, the total wealth of California’s billionaires grew by a staggering 144%, to over $2 trillion," the economists wrote. "Critics of the ballot measure have voiced concerns that even a small number of billionaires leaving the state would lead to lower state tax revenues overall. Their math doesn’t add up. California’s billionaires currently pay such a low tax rate that even if all of them left the state, it would take 25 years for the loss of their tax payments under the current set of rules to surpass the amount the state would raise if the one-time tax succeeds this fall."
"Defending 200 billionaires at the expense of the millions of Californians who will lose healthcare absent the passage of a billionaire tax is not a tenable position for the governor or the state of California."
Last week, organizers of the wealth tax initiative offered to withdraw its proposal if Newsom threw his support behind legislation imposing a 2% tax on California's billionaires—a compromise plan that the governor swiftly rejected.
"The governor supports making the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share, but this poorly designed state-only measure will defund teachers, schools, clinics, and public safety," said Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos. "Changing the tax rate doesn't change this measure's fundamental flaws that harm working Californians."
Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff for the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West—the union leading the ballot initiative—hit back, accusing Newsom's office of "engaging in Trump-like misinformation tactics, which is sad and indefensible."
"The billionaire tax explicitly funds clinics, hospitals, schools, teachers, and food assistance to the tune of billions," Jimenez said in an emailed statement. "All objective reports have shown that the wealth tax raises billions to fund healthcare, education, and food assistance—and the revenue that will be raised far surpasses any potential income tax erosion—in no small part because billionaires pay very little relative income tax."
"Defending 200 billionaires at the expense of the millions of Californians who will lose healthcare absent the passage of a billionaire tax is not a tenable position for the governor or the state of California," Jimenez added.
"I want a Democratic party that will stand for the working class," said Rep. Ro Khanna, a supporter of taxing billionaire wealth. "Whose side are you on?"
California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday refused to budge from his opposition to a proposed wealth tax on the Golden State's billionaires, swiftly dismissing a union-led coalition's effort to compromise by reducing its desired 5% rate by more than half.
In a letter to Newsom on Thursday, the Billionaire Tax Now coalition urged the governor and likely 2028 presidential candidate to support a "2% wealth tax on the state’s richest 200 billionaires." The coalition's demand came hours after organizers announced that they had collected enough signatures to get their proposed one-time, 5% tax on billionaire wealth on California's ballot in November.
Newsom's office made clear that the governor, who has been outspoken in his opposition to the proposed 5% wealth tax, would not support the compromise offer.
"The governor has been clear that he is strongly opposed to a California-only wealth tax," Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Newsom, said in a statement. "Changing the tax rate doesn’t change this measure’s fundamental flaws that harm working Californians.”
The Billionaire Tax Now coalition on Thursday offered to withdraw its popular ballot initiative calling for a one-time 5% levy on California billionaires' wealth if Newsom agreed to throw his weight behind legislation enacting a 2% wealth tax instead. Organizers and supporters say a tax on the vast fortunes of the state's wealthiest residents would help avert a looming healthcare disaster spurred by federal Medicaid cuts that President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans passed last summer.
"California is home to more billionaires than any state in the nation," the coalition wrote in its letter to Newsom on Thursday. "Their wealth has grown a staggering 212% in the last six years alone to more than $2.2 trillion dollars. A 2% one-time tax on that accumulated wealth is modest by any objective measure, especially if it means keeping emergency rooms open and saving patient lives. It’s more than appropriate at a moment when every other Californian is being asked by Sacramento to sacrifice."
"We need you to stand up against one of Trump’s worst and deadliest domestic policy blunders yet—the cuts to California healthcare contained in the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'" the coalition added. "Let’s save patient lives together."
US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a Silicon Valley representative who has supported the proposed wealth tax in the face of angry billionaire backlash, expressed support for the 2% compromise offer in a social media post on Thursday, noting that "250 billionaires own half of California GDP."
"Taxing them at 2% would save healthcare for millions. Healthcare workers have already compromised from 5%," Khanna wrote. "I want a Democratic party that will stand for the working class. This is a moral test for our party. Whose side are you on?"
“This is not going to be, ‘Billionaires killed this wealth tax’ if it appears on the November ballot,” said Newsom's chief of staff. “It’s going to be Planned Parenthood, doctors, teachers, and labor killed it.”
It comes as no shock that Silicon Valley oligarchs and other plutocrats are trying to keep a proposed billionaire tax backed by California governor and presumptive Democratic presidential aspirant Gavin Newsom off November's ballot. But the participation of progressive groups as "unlikely bedfellows" in the effort to kill the wealth tax has surprised many observers.
Introduced by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), the California Billionaire Tax would impose a one-time 5% levy on people worth $1 billion or more, to be paid in annual installments of 1% over five years. Proponents say the tax would raise roughly $100 billion in revenue.
The proposal requires the state to spend 90% of revenue from the tax on healthcare and the rest on food assistance and public education. Opponents counter it could drive wealthy residents and investment from California.
Supporters of the billionaire tax have submitted more than 1.5 million signatures, far more than the roughly 875,000 valid signatures required to qualify for November's ballot. The signatures are still being verified, and the office of California Secretary of State Shirley Weber has until June 25, 2026 to determine whether the initiative qualifies.
The measure is backed by numerous progressive groups including the Teamsters union, California Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and Our Revolution, as well as individual progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Democratic congressional candidate Connie Chan, who is running to replace retiring longtime San Francisco congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
However, opponents are trying to stop the proposal from qualifying for the ballot, while preparing for a fight in the likely event that it does.
Newsom, the California Democratic Party, and a growing list of groups—including the California Teachers Association (CTA), Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California (PPAC), and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California—are publicly opposing the tax and are urging SEIU-UHW to pull the proposal before June 25.
Republicans, the California Chamber of Commerce, and other capitalist interests oppose the billionaire tax, as do both candidates for California governor, Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton, and Chan's opponent in the San Francisco congressional race, state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11).
Newsom said that the proposed tax "makes no sense" and would be "really damaging to the state."
CTA argues that the tax is a one-time revenue source, while California schools and healthcare programs need permanent, recurring funding. To that end, the union is backing a separate ballot measure—the Children's Education and Health Care Protection Act—which would permanently extend Proposition 55, California's existing high-income-earner tax, set to expire in 2030.
Jodi Hicks, PPAC's president, recently said that the California Billionaire Tax's "uncertain impacts on the state budget and lack of specificity on healthcare allocations will do more harm than good in the long term."
PPAC and aligned groups including California Medical Association and California Primary Care Association also support extending Prop 55.
Meanwhile, tech billionaires and Silicon Valley executives—including Google co-founder Sergey Brin, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, PayPal and Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, and Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen—have raised tens of millions of dollars for Building a Better California, a political action committee dedicated to defeating the proposed tax at the ballot box.
Building a Better California is also backing separate initiatives designed to weaken or nullify the billionaire tax, including a ban on retroactive wealth taxation, restrictions on how any new tax revenue can be allocated, and the imposition of new auditing requirements.
Newsom and his allies have a useful weapon to deflect claims that he's helping billionaires who are trying to defeat the proposed tax.
“This is not going to be, ‘Billionaires killed this wealth tax’ if it appears on the November ballot,” Nathan Barankin, Newsom’s chief of staff, told The New York Times Wednesday. “It’s going to be Planned Parenthood, doctors, teachers, and labor killed it.”
SEIU-UHW accused opponents of the proposed tax of “carrying water for a few of the world’s most controversial billionaires."
“Their complicity with billionaires at the expense of patient interests is no surprise,” SEIU-UHW chief of staff Suzanne Jimenez told the Times.
"Donald Trump is simply the most corrupt president in American history. He's turned the levers of government into his own personal power ministry, to reward cronies and to try to jail his opponents."
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday said the US Department of Justice was investigating both him and his wife in what he described as an abuse of power being carried out on behalf of President Donald Trump.
In a video posted on social media, Newsom claimed federal agents in recent days "have knocked on the doors of family, friends, and former employees, not because they've found a crime" but "because they're simply trying to find one."
Newsom charged that Trump himself was behind the investigation, which he said was being done in response to his prospective 2028 presidential campaign.
"Donald Trump is simply the most corrupt president in American history," Newsom said. "He's turned the levers of government into his own personal power ministry, to reward cronies and to try to jail his opponents. His personal attorney now runs the Department of Justice, which has repeatedly gone after his political enemies."
Newsom then linked the current DOJ investigation into him to federal investigations of New York Attorney General Letitia James, former Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, and former FBI Director James Comey as yet another politically motivated assault on the rule of law.
"One by one, anyone who has challenged Donald Trump has ended up on his hit list," Newsom explained. "And today, I proudly join that list. After calling for my arrest last year, Donald Trump directed his Department of Justice to investigate me."
The governor said that investigators in recent days had shown particular interest in his wife, documentary filmmaker Jennifer Siebel Newsom.
"If they can't intimidate me, they'll go after the mother of our children," said Newsom. "Donald Trump picked the wrong target. We have nothing to hide."
A source told The New York Times that the investigations into Newsom "were initiated by federal law enforcement officials in California, based on government witnesses offering information there, and were not launched by officials in Washington."
However, Trump has gotten directly involved in multiple DOJ investigations of his political opponents that have led to criminal charges.
Last year, the president inadvertently posted a message on his Truth Social platform that was intended to be a private message to then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, in which he pushed her to move more quickly on indicting Comey, James, and US Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).
James and Comey would subsequently be hit with criminal charges, although cases against them were dismissed last year by a federal judge. Comey has since been indicted again for posting a purportedly threatening message on social media that some legal experts have described as an "embarrassing" case.