Palmer Luckey Says He Is Staying in California Despite Proposed Wealth Tax
Palmer Luckey, co-founder of defense startup Anduril, said at an invite-only press conference that he is not leaving California over the proposed state wealth tax. "I'm not running. I am staying," he said. He added: "I want to fight for California." The remarks were reported on October 27, 2026 by TechCrunch.
Luckey said other billionaires had pressured him to declare an intention to leave the state in solidarity against the measure. He did not do so. Anduril is headquartered in Costa Mesa, California, and was last valued at $61 billion. Luckey sold Oculus VR to Facebook for $2 billion in 2014.
The proposal is a ballot measure, designated Proposition 40, that would tax the net worth of the state's richest residents, including unrealized and illiquid assets. Unrealized gains are increases in value that have not been locked in by a sale, and illiquid assets cannot be quickly converted to cash. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, it would apply to billionaires who were California residents on January 1, 2026, and would impose a one-time state tax equal to 5 percent of net worth. Penalties under the proposal can reach 40%. Sponsors say the revenue would fund health care, education, and food assistance programs, including Medi-Cal.
Luckey said Anduril employees hold more equity in the company than he does, but that he preserved his voting rights. He has also used X to address the measure's effect on other prominent founders. In January, he wrote that Larry Page and Sergey Brin could not stay in California because the tax as written would take 50% of their Alphabet shares. On October 23, he posted that Mark Zuckerberg was getting ready to pay California's 5% billionaire wealth tax and had signed an agreement to remain in the state for eight years.
Ro Khanna, the California congressman, has taken a different position. According to his post on X, he opposes capital gains taxation on unrealized gains and supports a 1 to 2 percent wealth tax on established billionaires, with workarounds for founders.
In my view, the unrealized-gains language is where the measure becomes hardest to administer. A founder's stake in a privately held company carrying a $61 billion valuation is not a liquid position, and how a net worth figure is set for a non-traded holding will decide much of the actual cash burden. That is a valuation and liquidity problem as much as a tax-policy one, and it is the part of the debate most likely to matter to people who build and fund companies.
The broader context here is that the measure is still a proposal on a ballot, not an enacted law. Its supporters tie the revenue to specific public programs, and its critics question both the design and the likely response of residents with the most exposure. Luckey's statement is one data point in that argument: a prominent founder with a large stake in a venture-backed defense company saying he will remain and contest the measure in public. Whether the measure passes, and how its valuation rules would work in practice, will determine whether that choice has any practical consequence for the people it affects.
