SEIU-UHW confirmed that the proposed California Billionaire Tax Act qualified for the November statewide ballot in California, while backers pressed a reduced 2% rate in talks with Governor Gavin Newsom as the measure moves toward a June 25 certification deadline. The initiative would levy a one-time 5% tax on residents with net worth above $1 billion. The union signaled it could withdraw the measure before certification if a compromise emerges. Last update: June 19, 2026.
The measure matters because it targets roughly 200 ultra-wealthy residents and is projected to raise about $100 billion, with 90% for healthcare programs and the remainder for education and food assistance. Supporters frame the levy as a response to federal healthcare funding reductions and a way to stabilize hospitals and clinics. Opponents warn the tax could accelerate wealth flight, weaken future revenues, and unsettle the state’s innovation economy.
What the initiative would do and how payments work
The one-time 5% levy would apply to California residents worth over $1 billion, with tax liability due in 2027. Taxpayers would have the option to spread payments over five years at a higher total cost, a structure designed to ease liquidity pressures while still delivering the full amount to the state. Legislative analyses estimate revenue near $100 billion, with 90% directed to healthcare and 10% earmarked for education and food assistance. Backers argue the allocation prioritizes critical services facing strain from federal cuts over the next five years.
The sponsoring union, SEIU-UHWalso proposed scaling the levy to a 2% one-time tax as a negotiation entry point with the governor. In a letter to Newsom, union leaders urged a smaller but immediate assessment to prevent what they describe as imminent hospital and clinic closures. They cast the revised rate as a practical step to secure near-term funding while avoiding a protracted ballot fight.
Newsom’s opposition and the June 25 certification timeline
Governor Gavin Newsom has opposed the wealth tax throughout, arguing it risks driving billionaires—and their ongoing tax payments—out of California. “This will be defeated — there’s no question in my mind. I’ll do what I have to do to protect the state,” he said, committing to contest the measure at the ballot. His office has explored alternatives that avoid a state-level wealth tax, and aides indicated the scaled-back 2% proposal does not address what they describe as fundamental flaws.
The next formal milestone is June 25when the initiative is slated for official certification for the November ballot. Under state procedures, sponsors can withdraw an initiative before certification. SEIU-UHW has kept that option on the table as leverage to continue talks, but no agreement has been announced. Absent a deal, the campaign will shift fully to the ballot phase.
Campaign spending and stakeholders on both sides
The qualifying campaign has drawn intense spending and high-profile participation. Tech executives have poured millions into opposition efforts. Sergey Brin has reportedly spent at least $82 million to fight the measure and relocated to Nevada, while figures including Mark ZuckerbergPeter Thieland Tony Xu contributed substantial sums to defeat it. Opponents argue the tax sets a precedent that could expand and threatens to erode the state’s tax base.
Support has also come from marquee names. Bernie Sanders endorsed the concept as part of a broader push to address wealth concentration. In a contrasting stance within the tech sector, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang praised the benefits of building in Silicon Valley and expressed support for contributing despite higher taxes. Backers say the measure ensures those with the greatest means pay a fairer share, particularly as healthcare providers face financial stress linked to federal policy changes.
With the initiative on the November ballot and negotiations still possible before certification, the state’s wealthiest residents, labor unions, and the governor’s office remain locked in a contest over revenue, migration risks, and the stability of core public services. Campaigns are preparing for an expensive and closely watched fight that could shape wealth tax debates beyond California.
