(CALIFORNIA) — As he gears up for a possible presidential bid, California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday proposed a national “billionaires’ tax,” — a day after the state wealth tax measure he opposes qualified for the November ballot. 

Newsom’s counter proposal calls for a federal minimum tax rate on Americans worth more than $100 million, rather than a state level one-time 5% wealth tax that the governor argues could be dodged by billionaires who could leave the state for another.

Newsom, who said earlier this month that he is “considering running for president,” said the country should return to pre-2017 corporate tax rates and close offshore loopholes that allow multinationals to shift profits and pay less in taxes. He also said inheritance rules need to be rewritten.

“Over the next twenty years, this country will live through the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in human history, with roughly $124 trillion changing hands. If we do not act, that transfer of wealth among the ultra-wealthy will lock in a permanent American aristocracy of inherited wealth,” Newsom wrote in a Substack post announcing the proposal on Friday morning.

The announcement comes a day after California’s own billionaire tax qualified for the November ballot, having collected more than double the signatures needed. The measure, a one-time 5% tax on billionaire wealth introduced by healthcare workers union SEIU-UHW, in response to steep healthcare funding cuts resulting from President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” has faced opposition from Newsom, California Democratic gubernatorial nominee Xavier Becerra and major lobbying organizations.

“We can’t let a single advocacy organization, however well-intentioned, write the state’s tax code on its own terms,” Newsom wrote, calling out the SEIU-UHW. 

The measure has also led to heavy spending from billionaires, who oppose the tax. The nonprofit, Building a Better California, which supports committees promoting two competing ballot initiatives that would nullify the billionaire tax initiative, if passed, has raised more $118 million — and $80 million of that comes from Google co-founder Sergey Brin.

Newsom says that he understands the “anxiety driving the wealth tax proposal in California,” but that he’s voting no on the California proposal, because he argues the measure dedicates almost all of the revenue to just state-funded healthcare services.

SEIU-UHW Vice President Debru Carthan said Thursday that the coalition supporting the tax would not back down.

“The billionaire tax will be on the November ballot,” said Carthan. “And we intend to win.”

About 250 billionaires would be taxed under the California measure, and the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says it’s likely that some billionaires would leave the state.

“You may not be able to pick up and move to Texas or Florida to shelter your income from taxation, but I promise you that billionaires can, and do,” Newsom writes. “Wealth is movable, and it shops for the state with the lowest taxes. The fight belongs at the federal level, where this broken system was created in the first place.”

Dan Schnur, a political science professor at UC Berkeley, called Newsom’s tax proposal “savvy political positioning” as it helps him enter the 2028 field without being seen as an opponent to taxing the rich.

“He’s not against taxing billionaires, he just has a different way of doing it,” Schnur said. “He now has an answer for progressive Democrats, whether in California or in early primary states, as to why he didn’t support the ballot measure.”

In Washington, another 2028 contender, California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, joined Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders — both of whom supported the California’s initiative — in introducing legislation that would establish an annual 5% wealth tax on billionaires nationwide.

Newsom is also proposing a national public equity fund, giving Americans a stake in economic gains generated by artificial intelligence companies. The fund — aimed at workers left behind by automation — would support universal child care, free higher education, career training and healthcare. 

“Part of this fund could provide a real transition for the laid-off factory worker in Ohio or the 25-year-old coder in San Francisco who sent out a thousand resumes and got zero callbacks,” Newsom wrote. “This could include significant severance and portable benefits while we support them through the transition and into new jobs with programs like enhanced employment insurance.”

“As artificial intelligence reshapes the country, every American should own a piece of the future it builds,” Newsom wrote.

Other potential 2028 contenders are also beginning to stake out their positions on AI. Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has introduced legislation proposing a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction, which would create a temporary prohibition on the construction and expansion of data centers until Congress passes legislation to address the economic, environmental and safety impacts of artificial intelligence.

ABC News’ Will Lennon contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship by executive order, a move which would upend more than a century of legal precedent and a national tradition that have said babies born on American soil are automatically American citizens.

The ruling, one of the most highly anticipated of the year, is a major test of Trump’s unprecedented assertion of presidential power in his second term with major stakes for millions of children and their families.

What is birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship is the idea that a child automatically becomes a citizen of the country in which they are born, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.

It reflects the principle of jus soli, or right of the soil, extending citizenship purely on the basis of geographic location.

By contrast, many countries extend citizenship under the principle of jus sanguinis, or right of blood, which is determined by the nationality of a child’s parents regardless of the location of birth.

How does birthright citizenship work in the U.S.?

With few exceptions, all babies born on U.S. soil become U.S. citizens.

For the approximately 3.6 million children born in American hospitals every year, the birth certificate alone has been the key to obtaining Social Security numbers, passports and early life benefits.

Into adulthood, the birth certificate has been universally recognized as proof of citizenship for such things as voter registration, employment, home loans and military service.

What does the Constitution say about birthright citizenship?

The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to address the legal status of former slaves and their descendants, says plainly that all “persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens.

Congress later codified the same language in federal citizenship law enacted in 1940.

Courts and the government have repeatedly interpreted the 14th Amendment to unambiguously confer citizenship on all children born in the U.S., including babies of unauthorized noncitizens and temporary residents, such as asylum seekers, international students, tourists and seasonal workers.

Do other countries allow birthright citizenship?

Yes. Thirty-two other countries have citizenship laws nearly identical to the U.S., according to data compiled by the Pew Research Center. Roughly 50 more have limited versions of birthright citizenship.

The most inclusive citizenship policies are in countries in the Western Hemisphere. Brazil, Canada, Argentina and Mexico, for example, closely mirror American law.

Pakistan, Chad and Mozambique are other notable comparators to the U.S.

European countries have historically been more restrictive when it comes to citizenship. France, Greece and Spain extend citizenship at birth only to children whose parents were also born in those countries.

Australia, Germany and the United Kingdom grant automatic citizenship to any child born to a legal resident.

Why does President Trump want to end birthright citizenship?

On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship by redefining the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

He claims that children born to noncitizen parents who are either unlawfully in the country or who possess temporary legal status, such as tourists or foreign students, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and therefore ineligible.

The order would restrict citizenship to babies of current American citizens or other lawful permanent residents that have established “domicile” in the U.S.

The president argues the current citizenship policy is a “scam” that has allowed wealthy adversaries to take advantage of American benefits and “ripped off” taxpayers by providing financial assistance to children of undocumented people.

What is the argument in favor of birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship has been part of American tradition repeatedly affirmed by courts and legislators for more than a century.

The Supreme Court previously rejected constitutional arguments similar to the ones Trump is making.

“The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States,” wrote Justice Horace Gray in 1898 in the landmark Wong Kim Ark v. U.S. decision, addressing the status of children born to noncitizens.

Immigrant advocates and civil liberties groups have warned that ending birthright citizenship would harm hundreds of thousands of children born every year to noncitizen parents and create a bureaucratic nightmare for older Americans who would no longer be able to prove citizenship simply with a birth certificate.

An estimated 255,000 children born every year to noncitizen parents would have lost legal status under the order, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Some may have faced difficulty establishing citizenship in any country, effectively being born as “stateless.”

What happens if the Supreme Court allows Trump to end birthright citizenship?

The Trump administration says federal agencies have prepared guidelines for implementing a new process of conferring citizenship to children born after the order takes effect.

Federal agencies — by electronic databases or otherwise — would evaluate the legal status of a child’s parents first before making a determination of eligibility for citizenship and, in turn, for a Social Security number, passport and other benefits.

A U.S. birth certificate alone would no longer be sufficient proof of citizenship for any child going forward, including those born to American parents.

Immigrant advocates have warned of a “bureaucratic nightmare” for all parents of newborns, with vulnerable low-income children being particularly at risk of not getting necessary health care or nutrition assistance.

Some children who would not qualify for U.S. citizenship may be rendered “stateless” since several countries, particularly in southeast Asia, do not confer citizenship automatically to children born to their nationals abroad. That lack of legal status might make some newborns immediately eligible for deportation.

Can birthright citizenship be stripped if the court upholds Trump’s order?

The Trump administration says the executive order is not retroactive and would only apply to babies born after it takes effect.

However, some legal experts fear that any legal reasoning upholding Trump’s reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment could potentially be used by a future administration to pursue efforts to strip citizenship from some people if it wanted to.

“The government could move to unnaturalize people who were born here of illegal residents,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said during oral arguments in April.

When will the Supreme Court issue a ruling?

The justices are expected to rule in the case — Trump v. Barbara — before adjourning for their summer recess in early July.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.