Silicon Valley helped launch Ro Khanna as a reform-minded outsider a decade ago. Now, a slice of the same tech elite is coalescing behind a startup founder to unseat him, underscoring a dramatic break between the industry and one of its most prominent allies in Congress.
The impetus is money and power, dressed in policy clothes. Khanna, long floated as a future national contender, has embraced a one-time wealth tax in California and co-introduced federal legislation with Senator Bernie Sanders for a 5% annual levy on Americans worth $1 billion or more — a plan their offices estimate would raise $4.4 trillion over ten years. For investors and founders who once bankrolled Khanna’s rise, that crossed a red line.
From Tech Darling to Political Target in Silicon Valley
When Khanna first challenged Representative Mike Honda in 2014, he was the tech-backed insurgent, championed by marquee names including Marc Andreessen, Sheryl Sandberg and Eric Schmidt. He lost narrowly, recalibrated, then won in 2016 — and became Silicon Valley’s ambassador on antitrust, privacy, and advanced manufacturing.
The new challenger, entrepreneur Ethan Agarwal, typifies the Valley’s own mythology: Wharton-trained, a McKinsey alum, founder of audio fitness startup Aaptiv (acquired in 2021), and most recently a co-founder of financial services startup Coterie with backing from Andreessen Horowitz. He says Khanna “pivoted left,” and that a tweet endorsing the wealth tax was “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
Early supporters include high-profile operators like Y Combinator’s Garry Tan and DoorDash co-founder Stanley Tang, with more expected as campaign paperwork clears. The race will test whether the Valley’s political machine — individual donors, aligned super PACs, and a formidable influencer network — can turn on one of its own and prevail.
The Wealth Tax Flashpoint Dividing Tech and Khanna
Khanna’s wealth-tax advocacy is popular in many polls that show broad support for steeper levies on ultra-wealthy households, but it has spooked founders whose net worths ride on volatile, illiquid equity. Industry critics argue annual mark-to-market schemes are unworkable and could push company builders to relocate.
Agarwal is advancing alternatives that have circulated in elite finance circles:
- Taxing loans taken against concentrated stock positions — a linchpin of the “buy, borrow, die” strategy often discussed by Bill Ackman and Chamath Palihapitiya.
- Raising state capital gains rates.
- Imposing higher property taxes on investor-owned homes than on primary residences.
The thrust is clear: go after defensive wealth strategies and speculative holdings, but stop short of annual net-worth taxes.
Khanna’s camp counters that billionaires access public infrastructure and markets to amass fortunes and should shoulder more of the burden. The debate lands squarely in California’s 17th District, which includes parts of Cupertino, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara — one of the nation’s wealthiest by median income — yet where thousands of children still live below the poverty line, a statistic both campaigns cite for different ends.
Money Machines and Congressional Stock Trades Debate
Follow the money and you find the other fracture lines. Agarwal pledges to:
- Ban congressional stock trading.
- Reject corporate PAC money.
- Self-impose term limits.
He has accused Khanna of enabling extensive household trading despite supporting reform efforts.
Khanna points to Office of Government Ethics rules and says he neither owns nor trades individual stocks, adding that activity reported in disclosures is tied to his spouse’s pre-marital assets managed in an independent trust — a common but controversial arrangement in Washington. He has backed the TRUST in Congress Act and related resolutions to restrict trading by lawmakers, though critics argue sponsorship without personal abstention falls short of the spirit of reform.
Fundraising will be decisive. OpenSecrets data shows tech leaders have become among the most influential individual donors in federal races, with money increasingly routed through super PACs that can spend unlimited sums. California offers recent proof of concept: gig companies spent more than $200 million to pass Proposition 22, and San Francisco’s district attorney and school board recalls were buoyed by tech-affiliated donors. Khanna enters with a substantial war chest, sitting on roughly $15 million in campaign cash, according to federal filings — a daunting head start for any challenger.
AI and Section 230 Debates Raise the Political Stakes
Beyond taxes and ethics, this is also a referendum on how Washington should treat the Valley’s core businesses. Agarwal frames artificial intelligence as a national security race with China and warns against curbing frontier model development, echoing findings from the National Security Commission on AI that U.S. leadership is strategic. He is open to an independent oversight body — “an FDA for AI” — provided it is insulated from politics and accelerates, rather than stifles, innovation.
On social media liability, he argues Section 230 should be revisited where teen mental health is implicated but resists sweeping platform liability for user speech. That stance lands amid state lawsuits targeting platform harms and Supreme Court fights over online moderation standards, issues Khanna has engaged while pressing tech firms on transparency and algorithmic accountability.
The Valley’s Breakup With Its Congressman
The symbolism is hard to miss: the district that built the modern internet could become the stage where tech money tests whether it can dethrone a one-time ally for straying on taxes and regulatory posture. If Agarwal turns early donor buzz into a ground game across Cupertino temples, San Jose small businesses and weekend language schools — the kinds of local stops he emphasizes — it will signal a new model of Valley-backed populism.
If he cannot, the lesson will be just as clear: national name recognition, legislative achievements, and deep coffers still outweigh even the Valley’s formidable checkbooks. Either way, this race will reveal whether Silicon Valley still sets the terms of its own politics — or whether its influence is fragmenting along the very lines it helped draw.