For months, there has been talk that Silicon Valley’s billionaire class is recruiting candidates to replace Congressman Ro Khanna. Early Tuesday morning, the candidate officially announced.
Ethan Agarwal (pictured above), a 40-year-old tech entrepreneur with no political background, told TechCrunch on Monday night that he is running for California’s 17th Congressional District. This process could launch an agenda that could be one of the most well-funded major challenges of the 2026 cycle.
The campaign has put a spotlight on Khanna, a 49-year-old Democrat who is widely seen as a 2028 presidential candidate and has publicly supported a one-time wealth tax in California. His support infuriated some of the state’s wealthy founders and investors, but Mr. Khanna stepped up anyway, joining Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday to introduce national legislation that would impose a 5% annual wealth tax on all Americans with wealth of more than $1 billion — a proposal his office estimates would raise $4.4 trillion over 10 years.
There is a certain irony in this situation. Agarwal, a Wharton graduate, spent three years at McKinsey before founding audio fitness company Aaptiv, which he sold in 2021. He recently co-founded financial services startup Coterie with support from Andreessen Horowitz.
When Khanna first ran for the same seat in 2014, he was a tech-backed outsider, backed by tech luminaries like Marc Andreessen, Sheryl Sandberg and Eric Schmidt. He challenged and lost to popular Democratic incumbent Mike Honda, but ran again in 2016 and won.
Critics at the time called Khanna the owner. Ten years from now, it is certain that the same charges will be levied against those who tried to unseat him.
The following is an edited version of my conversation with Agarwal.
tech crunch event
San Francisco, California
|
October 13-15, 2026
Last summer, you announced your plans to run for governor of California. Now you are participating in a parliamentary election instead. Why a switch?
I decided to run for governor back in July, when the field of candidates was really thin. I have no political background. I come from the technology industry. But then several strong candidates joined in, including Matt Mahan. I think he’s really powerful. I have been following Mr Low since his first parliamentary election in 2012. I was a big supporter. But in recent years, he has gradually moved further to the left, and his tweet in late December supporting a wealth tax was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I realized I could make a bigger impact by running through District 17 and unseating Ro.
Who is supporting you financially?
I’ll be pulling in the documents tomorrow, so I won’t be able to collect the money until then because I don’t have a bank account yet. That being said— [Y Combinator CEO] Garry Tan is behind me, [DoorDash co-founder] Stanley Tang and many others in the tech community whose names will be revealed in the coming days and weeks.
[Editor’s note: The involvement of Tan, Tang, and others will likely fuel a familiar line of attack: that Agarwal is less an independent candidate than a vehicle for billionaire grievances. It is worth noting that Khanna faced nearly identical criticism when he first ran.]
Could you add a little more color to your plan? Is there an alternative to the billionaire tax other than closing loopholes?
One is to tax loans made using assets as collateral. Very wealthy people take out loans on their equity and pay low interest rates. Strictly speaking, it’s a loan, so no taxes are due. I think it’s very reasonable to tax those loans.
The second is capital gains. California’s interest rate is currently 13.4%, and I think it makes sense to consider raising it. Third, many homes in California are owned by private equity firms or people who hold their homes as investments. I believe you should pay much higher property taxes on a home you own as an investment than if you own it as your primary residence. This would increase their income and reduce the pressure on the families who actually live in the homes they own.
[The loan-tax idea has been circulating in wealthy circles for some time — notably espoused by VC Chamath Palihapitiya, though it may trace back further to hedge fund giant Bill Ackman. The proposal would treat loans backed by stock holdings as taxable events, eliminating a longstanding strategy by which investors access their portfolio’s value without selling, and thus without ever paying capital gains taxes.]
What will be your number one priority once you arrive in Washington?
The first is to prohibit stock trading by members of Congress and their families. The second is a ban on corporate PAC money. Third, term limits.
[Earlier in the conversation, Agarwal spoke at length about the 5,000 children in the 17th district — the wealthiest congressional district in the country — living below the poverty line, and described making it “the first congressional district in history to completely eradicate childhood poverty” as one of his proposals. That point did not make the top three.]
You accused Ro Khanna of being a prolific stock trader. Could you please explain?
He has traded more stocks than any Democrat in U.S. history, including tobacco, oil and gas, Big Pharma and big tech. He publicly introduced a ban on stock trading in Congress, making 4,000 trades last year. Even if the bill doesn’t pass, there’s nothing stopping him from imposing it on himself. In my case, I intend to sell my entire portfolio on the first day of winning, so no one has to wonder if my vote reflects my personal account or my actual beliefs.
[Both claims deserve scrutiny. Khanna has co-sponsored the TRUST in Congress Act and introduced reform resolutions calling for a ban but hasn’t authored stand-alone legislation. On the trading figures, Khanna has repeatedly said that he does not personally own or trade any individual stocks and that the trades in question belong to his wife, whose premarital assets are held in an independently managed trust — which, he noted, eliminates any conflict under Office of Government Ethics rules. Whether that distinction satisfies voters is a question the campaign will have to answer.]
Should social media platforms be held responsible for harming teens? Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act currently exempts them from liability for what their users post. What do you think about changing that?
I think it was Section 230 when it was first drafted. [in 1996]it made a lot of sense. The goal was for the platform to basically act as hosting. But as they have evolved, they have come to determine what we see thanks to the algorithms they push. I don’t think it makes sense to hold social media companies fully responsible for what people post. That amount is too much, and having a third party make subjective judgments about what is harmful gets into really dangerous territory.
That said, I think it’s worth revisiting when it comes to the long-term effects on teenagers’ mental health. If you talk to Meta or X or anyone, they’ll all tell you there’s no benefit to hurting teenagers. We all agree that we don’t want that outcome.
Many of the AI companies are literally in your backyard, so what about regulating them?
Let’s think about it from a national security perspective. I believe it is critical for the United States to have the most powerful model, and if we don’t build it, we will lose to China.
Some restrictions make sense. AI should not help you harm yourself or others. But I don’t think we should limit companies’ ability to build and enhance these models. It is very important, at least for the sake of national security, to allow them to thrive.
Do you think AI needs something like the FDA?
I’ve heard that idea before. The FDA has primarily done a good job of keeping Americans healthy and safe. I trust the people who work there, which I can’t say about most government agencies. If there is a way to build an independent, non-political authority with rotating terms, that makes sense to me. But I want to make sure that it’s not a political objective, it’s aimed at strengthening America’s national security.
What about prediction markets — Polymarket, Kalshi? Do they need more regulation?
To be clear, both Kalshi and Polymarket are regulated by the CFTC. I think part of the problem is that sports betting apps have created regulatory confusion about what is allowed in which states, and Polymarket and Calci have emerged in their place. But today’s regulations are actually pretty good.
How do you plan to run this campaign? Are you doing this full time?
This is 110% of my life. I went to [the private San Jose, California, school] Located in the Harker district. You grew up nearby. I know hundreds, maybe thousands, of people who live there. My campaign is basically a ground campaign, going to Chinese and Hindi schools and cultural events. Holi festival is approaching. Purim, the Chinese New Year, falls on Tuesday. I’m going to meet people, visit small businesses, and do all kinds of things.
In fact, I think this is the central contrast between Law and me. He’s building a national profile and if that’s what he wants to do, I’m totally fine with that. But he does it while abandoning the people of his district. I have no intention of leaving California. I’m not using this as a stepping stone. He is national. I’m local. And I think people in the 17th know that they need someone who will focus solely on them.
What led you to step into the world of politics in the first place?
It may be a cliché, but my father came here with nothing and was making $14,000 a year when he first arrived. He founded a company, took it public, and sold it. As a result, I was born at third base. I started two companies and sold both.
And I see people around me no longer benefiting from the same systems that made it all possible. The people here are hardworking and have great potential, but the environment no longer supports them. I’ve been complaining about it for a long time and felt it was time to stand up and do something.
Is this the beginning of your political career?
This is not the point of your career. District 17 has a very specific problem that they want to solve. I’m going to impose term limits on myself – no more than five terms – and probably go back to the private sector. Service should be a calling, not a job. And to be honest, I don’t think it will have a positive impact on voters when it becomes a career. Even if the term limits bill doesn’t pass, I’m going to impose it on myself. That’s what I actually believe.
Source link
