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 wealthiest founders and investors, but Mr. Khanna went further, introducing national legislation with Sen. Bernie Sanders that would impose a 5% annual wealth tax on all Americans with wealth of $1 billion or more — 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, CA | October 13-15, 2026
TechCrunch: Last summer, you announced your plans to run for governor of California. Now you are participating in a parliamentary election instead. Why a switch?
Agarwal: I decided to run for governor in July when the field 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.
TC: Who supports you financially?
Agarwal: I am planning to submit my documents tomorrow, so I won't be able to raise funds until then as 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, and was backed by much of the same tech-donor class that is now organizing against him.]
TC: Can you tell us a little more about your plan?Are there any alternatives to the billionaire tax other than closing loopholes?
Mr. Agarwal: One is to tax loans made against assets. 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.]
TC: What are your top three priorities once you get to Washington?
Agarwal: Number one is to ban members of Congress and their families from trading in stocks. 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.]
TC: You have accused Ro Khanna of being a prolific stock trader. Could you please explain?
Mr. Agarwal: He has traded more stocks in tobacco, oil and gas, Big Pharma, Big Tech than any other Democrat in the history of this country. 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 standalone 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 pre-marital 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.]
TC: Should social media platforms be held liable for harm caused to teens?Currently, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act exempts them from liability for what their users post. What do you think about changing that?
Agarwal: I think it was Article 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.
TC: What about regulation of AI companies? Is much of it literally in your backyard?
Agarwal: I look at 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 flourish.
TC: Do you think AI needs something like the FDA?
Agarwal: I've heard that idea. 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.
TC: What about prediction markets, polymarkets and calci? Do they need more regulation?
Agarwal: Just to be clear, both Karshi 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.
TC: How do you plan to run this campaign? Are you doing this full time?
Agarwal: This is 110% of my life. I went to [the private San Jose, Ca., 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.
TC: What led you to enter the world of politics in the first place?
Agarwal: Maybe this is a cliché, but my father came here with absolutely 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.
TC: Is this the beginning of your political career?
Agarwal: This is not the crux of a 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.
[That also echoes something from Khanna’s early campaigns — the outsider who arrives with no interest in becoming a career politician except a mandate from the tech industry to shake things up. Whether Agarwal gets further than Khanna’s first attempt did in 2014 may depend on whether Khanna develops any vulnerabilities of his own. Right now, introducing sweeping national legislation with Bernie Sanders and sitting on $15 million in campaign cash, he appears to be doing everything he can to ensure he doesn’t.]