California's Next Governor Inherits a $35 Billion Deficit, a $246 Billion Pension Gap, and an Accelerating Tax Base Exodus

Does Anyone Really Want the Job — Candidates Offer No Credible Plan

California Politics · Investigative Analysis 

Six Democrats and two Republicans seek to replace Gavin Newsom. None has presented a fiscally coherent program that closes the structural budget gap, addresses public pension underfunding, and retains a tax base that has been migrating to Texas, Florida, and Nevada at record rates.

By Stephen "Pseudo Publius"  |  San Diego  |  May 6, 2026 

Bottom Line Up Front 

California's next governor will take office facing a structural state budget deficit that the Legislative Analyst's Office projects at between $20 billion and $35 billion annually for the foreseeable future, a combined CalPERS and CalSTRS unfunded pension liability of roughly $246 billion at the funds' own actuarial assumptions and considerably higher under market-rate analysis, and a documented loss of $102 billion in adjusted gross income to interstate migration over the past decade. None of the eight top-polling candidates in the June 2 primary has presented a fiscal program that simultaneously addresses these three pressures. Democratic tax-increase proposals concentrate burden on the most mobile filers — the top one percent of earners, who already supply roughly 40 to 50 percent of state income tax revenue. Republican tax-cut proposals lack credible offsets. Public pension reform is absent from every major platform. The proposed Billionaire Tax Act has already triggered the relocation of at least six prominent ultra-high-net-worth Californians, removing an estimated $536 billion in wealth from the state's tax base before the measure has even qualified for the November ballot.

The Structural Deficit Is Not a Trump Problem

In its review of Governor Gavin Newsom's proposed 2026-27 state budget, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office reached a conclusion the campaign trail has largely avoided: the state's persistent budget gap is structural rather than cyclical. Deficits have appeared in four consecutive years even as the California economy has expanded and revenue has grown. The LAO's January report on the budget warned that without ongoing solutions to align expenditures with recurring revenue, California risks a repeat of the post-dot-com and post-Great-Recession fiscal crises, when short-term patches gave way to severe program reductions and emergency tax increases.^[1]

Governor Newsom's proposed $248.3 billion General Fund spending plan reduced the projected gap to $2.9 billion through the suspension of a scheduled $2.8 billion Rainy Day Fund deposit. The LAO and the California Budget & Policy Center concluded the proposal does not materially address either the multiyear deficit or the federal funding reductions enacted in H.R. 1, instead relying on revenue upgrades and accounting maneuvers that the Legislative Analyst has questioned on constitutional grounds.^[1][2]

The LAO's projection that the deficit could reach $35 billion annually within several years assumes baseline revenue growth and existing program commitments. It does not assume an economic downturn, a stock market correction, or further federal cutbacks beyond those already enacted — any of which would worsen the picture significantly.^[3]

The Pension Liability the Candidates Will Not Discuss

An examination of policy statements, debate transcripts, official campaign websites, and candidate forum responses from the eight top-polling 2026 gubernatorial candidates reveals a striking pattern: none has made public pension reform a meaningful component of their platform. The CalMatters voter guide, the KQED voter guide, the KPBS race explainer, and the official Secretary of State Voter Information Guide candidate statements contain no substantive proposals on the unfunded pension liability from any major candidate.^[4][5][6][7]

The numbers explain why the silence is significant. The Public Policy Institute of California reports that CalPERS, the state's main public employee pension fund, carries an unfunded liability of more than $138.9 billion, while CalSTRS, the teachers' system, carries an unfunded liability of more than $107.3 billion. Both figures have grown by approximately $103 billion and $84 billion respectively since 2008, despite a long bull market and despite the 2013 PEPRA reforms enacted under Governor Brown.^[8]

Stanford University's pension tracking project, directed by former Assemblyman and Stanford lecturer Joe Nation, has consistently calculated that combining all California public pension funds and recalculating their liabilities using the principles of finance — that is, market discount rates rather than the 7 percent assumed return CalPERS and CalSTRS use — produces a collective taxpayer obligation in the neighborhood of $769 billion, or roughly $60,000 per California household.^[9]

State pension contributions have grown from approximately 2.1 percent of the state budget in 2002-2003 to 6.5 percent by 2016-2017, with continued growth projected. CalPERS's annual bill to the state has approached or exceeded $8.7 billion in recent years.^[8][10]

The trajectory is also driven by demographic and actuarial reality. CalPERS reported approximately two active members per retiree in 2001; by 2015, the ratio had dropped to 1.3. CalPERS's own investment consultants have concluded the system is more likely to earn approximately 6 percent over the next decade than its assumed 7 percent target — a gap that, if sustained, would expand the unfunded liability further.^[8][9]

In his final budget, Newsom proposed using a previously scheduled Proposition 2 supplemental debt payment of $1.7 billion to offset current pension costs rather than to reduce the underlying liability. The Legislative Analyst's Office wrote that the maneuver "appears unconstitutional," contending that it would supplant rather than supplement what the state would otherwise be required to provide CalPERS.^[10]

None of this has surfaced as a meaningful issue in the 2026 campaign. No candidate has proposed lowering the assumed rate of return, introducing a hybrid defined-benefit and defined-contribution structure for new hires, addressing the largely pay-as-you-go retiree health (OPEB) obligation, or accelerating the paydown schedule. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco's pledge to identify "wasteful spending" and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton's proposed federal-state fraud task force are the closest the field comes — neither names pensions, retiree health, or the actuarial framework as targets.^[4][5]

The Tax Base in Motion

While the candidates debate how to raise additional revenue, the population of filers from whom that revenue would be drawn has been leaving the state at historic rates.

According to U.S. Census Bureau and California Department of Finance data, California recorded a net domestic out-migration loss of approximately 216,000 residents in the 2024-2025 period, marking the sixth consecutive year of net domestic out-migration losses. Los Angeles County alone shed nearly 54,000 residents between July 2024 and July 2025 — the largest single-year population decline of any county in the United States.^[11]

The Heritage Foundation's analysis of Internal Revenue Service migration data documents that filers earning $200,000 or more are the most likely to relocate from high-tax states to low-tax states, though the pattern holds across all income groups. Between April 2020 and July 2023, approximately 2 million more Americans moved out of California and New York than moved in. Florida, Texas, and Nevada — all with no state income tax — were the predominant destinations.^[12]

Independent analyses based on IRS data find that California has lost more than $100 billion in net adjusted gross income to interstate migration over the past decade, second only to New York.^[13]

This migration matters more for California's revenue picture than for nearly any other state's because of how concentrated California's income tax base is. As San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan has publicly acknowledged, the top one percent of California filers account for an estimated 40 to 50 percent of state personal income tax revenue. The departure of a few thousand high-income households can produce a revenue shock that no broad-based migration model would predict.^[14]

The Billionaire Tax Has Already Triggered a Pre-Vote Exodus

Initiative 25-0024, titled the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, was cleared for signature gathering by Attorney General Rob Bonta in December 2025. Backed by Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers West, the measure would impose a one-time 5 percent tax on the net worth of California residents whose assets exceed $1 billion as of January 1, 2026, with payments spread over five years. Proponents must collect 874,641 valid signatures by June 24, 2026, to qualify for the November 2026 ballot. Of the 2026 gubernatorial candidates, only state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond has publicly endorsed the measure.^[14][15]

The behavioral response has been documented. Public filings reviewed in early 2026 show that Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin moved several business entities, including family offices and research funds, to Florida and other jurisdictions ahead of the residency cutoff. Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, venture capitalist David Sacks, film producer Steven Spielberg, and financier Don Hankey are among at least six prominent ultra-high-net-worth individuals who relocated or shifted major asset holdings out of California in advance of the cutoff. A Stanford-linked analysis estimated that these six departures alone removed approximately $536 billion in wealth from California's tax base.^[15][16]

Oracle founder Larry Ellison reportedly closed an off-market sale of his San Francisco residence in late 2025; press accounts have described it as the largest San Francisco real estate transaction of the year. Mark Zuckerberg has previously relocated to Florida.^[17]

The Public Policy Institute of California's data indicates that approximately 3 percent of California businesses relocated out of state in 2025 alone. High-profile corporate relocations during the past five years include Tesla, Oracle, and Chevron — the latter moving its headquarters to Houston, Texas. Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Charles Schwab, and McKesson are among other large California-headquartered companies that have moved their corporate centers in recent years.^[15]

Governor Newsom — a fellow Democrat who would be expected to endorse a labor-backed revenue measure — has publicly opposed the Billionaire Tax Act. State Senate Republican Vice Chair of the Budget Committee Roger Niello has questioned the logic of additional revenue measures during a period of growing revenue.^[18]

What the Candidates Have Proposed

The eight top-polling candidates' fiscal proposals, as documented in the CalMatters and KQED voter guides and in coverage of the May 5 CNN debate at East Los Angeles College, can be summarized as follows.^{[4][5][19][20]}

Candidate	Tax / Revenue Position	Spending Position	Pension / Liability Position
Xavier Becerra (D) Former U.S. HHS Secretary	Higher rates on the "mega-wealthy"; examining taxation of passive and investment income; no specific plan released. Proposes state-of-emergency declarations to freeze utility and insurance rates.	Protect Medi-Cal and existing programs. Will use state funds to keep at-risk Californians housed before they become homeless.	No public position.
Katie Porter (D) Former U.S. Representative	Raise California's corporate tax rate on high-earning companies; eliminate state income tax for families earning under $100,000; cover two years of UC/CSU tuition.	Has not specified backfill mechanism for federal Medi-Cal cuts. Supports state-level single-payer healthcare without identified funding source.	No public position.
Tom Steyer (D) Former hedge fund manager	Raise commercial property taxes (split-roll Proposition 13 reform); close the "water's edge" multinational profit-shifting loophole; introduce a fee on artificial intelligence usage to fund worker support; challenge investor-owned utility monopolies.	Build "one million homes you can afford" using surplus public lands and prefabricated construction. Supports state-level single-payer healthcare.	No public position.
Tony Thurmond (D) State Superintendent of Public Instruction	Endorses the proposed one-time tax on California billionaires' assets to backfill federal Medi-Cal reductions. Supports tax credits for low-income working families.	Open spare school district land for housing development; commit additional public funding to affordable housing.	No public position.
Antonio Villaraigosa (D) Former Mayor of Los Angeles	Opposes gas tax suspension. No major new tax proposed. Skeptical of climate-cost regulations; favors moratorium.	Boost homebuyer assistance programs; create a federal-immigration-compliance task force.	No public position.
Matt Mahan (D) Mayor of San Jose	Opposes new taxes; supports temporary suspension of state gas tax. Has publicly acknowledged that the top one percent of filers supply 40 to 50 percent of state income tax.	Tie government leader pay to performance. Continue tiny-home approach for unsheltered homelessness.	No public position. Is the only candidate who has publicly named the income-tax concentration risk.
Chad Bianco (R) Riverside County Sheriff	Eliminate the state personal income tax (approximately $140 billion in revenue, more than half of General Fund spending). Eliminate the state gas tax. Boost in-state oil production for revenue offset.	Cut "wasteful spending" — no specific programs identified. Cut state regulations broadly. Overturn state sanctuary law.	No public position.
Steve Hilton (R) Former adviser to UK PM David Cameron; former Fox News host	Eliminate state income tax for those earning under $100,000; impose a flat 7.5 percent rate above $100,000; eliminate the $800 minimum franchise tax for businesses.	Joint federal-state task force to identify and eliminate fraud — no specific program reductions named. Reduce environmental regulations and capping development fees.	No public position.

Why Each Plan Fails the Flight Test

The Democratic candidates proposing tax increases have not, in any publicly available document or debate response, addressed the question of how the targeted filers and corporations would be retained.

Steyer's proposal to close the water's edge loophole on multinationals is the only major Democratic revenue measure with intrinsic flight resistance, because it targets profits booked offshore by companies doing business in California regardless of headquarters location. His commercial property tax proposal — a partial unwinding of Proposition 13's protections for non-residential property — has been studied repeatedly and is known to flow through to small business tenants under triple-net commercial leases.^[4][14]

Porter's proposal to raise the corporate tax rate on high-earning companies does not engage with the prior decade of corporate headquarters relocations from California to lower-tax states. Becerra's framework of taxing passive and investment income — an unwritten plan — is precisely the kind of tax most readily avoided through residency change, since investment income is deemed sourced to the taxpayer's state of domicile rather than to the location of the underlying assets.^[4][5]

Thurmond's endorsement of the Billionaire Tax Act runs into the empirical fact that the targeted population has already begun leaving in advance of the measure's potential enactment. The relocation of approximately $536 billion in capital from at least six identifiable households, before the initiative has even qualified for the ballot, suggests that static-scoring estimates of the measure's revenue yield are not consistent with the observed behavioral response.^[15][16]

The Republican proposals fail a different test. Bianco's plan to eliminate the personal income tax — which generates more than 60 percent of California General Fund revenue — would create a roughly $140 billion annual revenue gap. His offsets are unspecified "wasteful spending" reductions and additional oil production revenue. No combination of those two categories, at any plausible scale, closes a hole of that magnitude. Hilton's narrower proposal — eliminating income tax below $100,000 and imposing a flat 7.5 percent above — would still cost the state tens of billions of dollars annually, with the proposed federal-state fraud task force as the named offset. Neither candidate has identified a single state program for elimination.^[4][5]

The Counterargument, Honestly Stated

The State Controller's Office has published an analytical paper concluding that California's income tax revenue impact from outmigration has been overstated. The paper finds that taxes paid by departing filers are largely offset by taxes paid by new arrivals, with each group contributing more than $1 billion in tax revenue per year. It also notes that California uses single-sales-factor apportionment for corporate tax, meaning a corporation that moves its headquarters but continues to sell into California still pays California corporate tax on its California sales.^[21]

The argument has merit, particularly for the corporate side. It does not, however, neutralize the concentration risk on the personal income tax side, where residency rather than sales determines liability. It also relies primarily on data from before the most recent acceleration in high-net-worth departures and was published before the Billionaire Tax Act became a measurable behavioral driver in 2024-2025. A one-time wealth tax is a stock tax rather than a flow tax, and the replacement-by-new-arrivals model on which the Controller's analysis rests presumes a continuous flow of new high-income filers willing to take the place of those departing — a presumption that the 2024-2025 net domestic out-migration figures place under significant strain.

The Three Reform Options None Has Chosen

A candidate seeking to address the structural deficit, the pension liability, and the flight risk in a single coherent program would have three available paths.

The first is to acknowledge the flight risk and shift to broader-based revenue — for instance, restoring pre-2012 income tax bracket structures across a wider range of filers, or moderately broadening the sales tax base to capture services. This approach distributes incidence rather than concentrating it. None of the eight candidates has proposed it, and it is politically difficult in a Democratic primary.

The second is to retain a wealth-or-top-bracket approach but pair it with anti-flight architecture: an exit tax with multi-year clawback provisions, residency-determination reform, and constitutional changes to address the unfunded pension liability through market-rate accounting. Variants of this approach have been considered in Massachusetts and New York. None of the California candidates has proposed it.

The third is to fit recurring spending to the recurring revenue California can credibly retain, which would require pension reform, retiree health pre-funding, and structural program consolidation. Bianco and Hilton gesture in this direction without naming the targets, and the Democratic candidates do not engage with it at all.

The path the field has actually selected is a fourth, non-coherent option: incremental tax increases targeted at the most mobile portion of the tax base, no engagement with the pension or OPEB obligations, no specific spending reductions, and an implicit assumption that the arithmetic will work out. The trajectory of the past decade — four consecutive years of structural deficits, a $246 billion combined CalPERS-CalSTRS unfunded liability, six consecutive years of net domestic out-migration, and a $102 billion lifetime AGI loss to other states — does not support that assumption.

What Voters Are Being Offered

A February 2026 statewide survey by the Public Policy Institute of California found that nine in ten Californians considered the state budget situation to be either a big problem or somewhat of a problem; only seven percent said it was not a problem. Among the same respondents, only ten percent named the state budget as the single most important issue facing the next governor and legislature, with cost of living, housing, and political concerns ranking higher.^[22]

The disconnect between voter recognition of the fiscal problem and voter prioritization of fiscal solutions has been mirrored on the campaign trail. Candidates have devoted significant debate time to gas prices, immigration enforcement, and characterizations of the federal administration. They have devoted comparatively little to the pension trajectory, the actuarial assumptions on which it rests, or the relationship between proposed tax increases and observed migration.

The June 2 primary will produce two finalists for the November ballot. With the Democratic field fragmented and Republicans Bianco and Hilton consolidating GOP support — the latter holding President Donald Trump's endorsement — multiple polling models give a non-trivial probability of a Republican-versus-Republican November election.^[19][20]

Whichever two candidates advance, the budget message of California's outgoing governor will be inherited intact. The structural deficit, the unfunded liability, and the migration pattern will not have been addressed. They will simply be transferred to the next desk.

Applying the Test: Which Candidate Comes Closest to Fiscal Coherence?

Reading the candidates' records against the three concerns this article has identified — willingness to engage with the structural deficit, willingness to acknowledge the public pension liability, and willingness to address the flight risk associated with tax-base concentration — produces a ranking that may surprise voters who have been following the campaign through its dominant frames of immigration, gas prices, and federal-state relations.

Bottom-Tier Fit

Sheriff Chad Bianco's proposal to eliminate California's personal income tax — approximately $140 billion annually, more than 60 percent of General Fund revenue — without a credible offset structure is the field's least serious fiscal program. The proposed offsets, "wasteful spending" reductions and additional in-state oil production revenue, do not approach the order of magnitude required to close such a gap. State Superintendent Tony Thurmond's endorsement of the Billionaire Tax Act places him in direct opposition to the flight-risk concern, given the documented behavioral response that has already begun in advance of the measure's potential enactment. Former HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra has not produced a written fiscal plan and therefore cannot be evaluated against the criteria; his framework of taxing passive and investment income is structurally the form of taxation most readily avoided through residency change.

Middle-Tier Fit

Former Cameron adviser Steve Hilton has clearly engaged with fiscal architecture more deeply than Bianco — his proposed flat-tax structure above $100,000 is a coherent design — but the named offset mechanism, a federal-state fraud task force, is insufficient to the gap his proposal would create. Tom Steyer's split-roll Proposition 13 reform, AI-usage fee, and water's edge loophole closure constitute the largest revenue increase in the field; only the water's edge component, which targets profits booked offshore by multinationals doing business in California, survives the flight-resistance test on its own design merits. Former Representative Katie Porter's proposal to raise the corporate tax rate while eliminating income taxes for households below $100,000 does not engage with the prior decade of corporate headquarters relocations from California to lower-tax states, including Tesla, Oracle, Chevron, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Charles Schwab, and McKesson.

Top-Tier Fit

Two candidates remain: former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan. Both oppose new broad-based tax increases. Both oppose gas tax suspension and similar fiscal gimmickry. Villaraigosa's record on Los Angeles fiscal management was uneven — he expanded the LAPD's force size significantly and championed sales tax increases for transportation infrastructure, both defensible decisions in their own context but indicators that fiscal restraint was not the defining feature of his executive tenure, which concluded in 2013.

Mahan, by contrast, brings a current executive record. He is the only candidate of the eight who has publicly acknowledged the concentration risk in California's income tax structure — that the top one percent of filers supplies an estimated 40 to 50 percent of state personal income tax revenue. He is the only Democrat in the field who has positioned against new taxes at a moment when his party's reflex has been the opposite. His proposal to tie government leader pay to performance is the only management-reform idea any candidate has put forward — an engagement with how state government actually operates, distinct from what it taxes or spends. His one-word characterization of Governor Newsom's tenure at the May 5 CNN debate, "incomplete," was, with Villaraigosa's "performative," one of the only critical assessments offered by any Democratic candidate, signaling an understanding that the status quo trajectory is not sustainable.^[20]

None of this constitutes a complete fiscal program. Mahan, like every other candidate in the field, has said nothing about public pension reform, retiree health pre-funding, the assumed-rate-of-return question on which the unfunded liability calculation turns, or the prospect of a hybrid defined-benefit/defined-contribution structure for new state hires. He would manage the fiscal trajectory rather than reverse it. By the standard of "candidate who would materially reduce state spending," he is no more credible than the field. By the narrower standard of "candidate who recognizes the constraints under which state revenue must operate," he stands alone among the eight.

The Practical Question for Voters

Recent polling, including the California Democratic Party's internal survey released in early May 2026, has placed Mahan in the second tier of the field, behind both Republicans and behind Becerra and Steyer among Democrats. The probability that he advances to the November runoff is measurable but not the central case. Voters whose primary concern is fiscal seriousness therefore face a tactical question: whether to cast a primary ballot for the candidate who best fits their criteria, or whether to allocate the vote to influence which two candidates appear on the November ballot — which would shift such a voter toward Villaraigosa as the next-best-fitting candidate with more realistic odds of advancing.^[19][20]

The November general election will require a different calculation. A Mahan-versus-Hilton runoff presents one set of trade-offs. A Steyer-versus-Bianco runoff presents an entirely different and substantially more difficult one. Voters whose fiscal concerns track those documented in this article are advised to reserve judgment on the November race until the field narrows on June 2, at which point the operative question becomes which form of fiscal incoherence does the least collateral damage to the other governance concerns — transportation, healthcare access, federal-state stability, public safety, and California's defense-industrial relationship with the federal government — that any governor must also manage.

The "none of the above" sentiment captured in recent voter surveys is intellectually defensible. The state's three binding fiscal constraints have not been engaged by any major candidate in this cycle. Voters will nonetheless cast ballots, and one of the eight will become governor. On a strict reading of the fiscal criteria documented above, Matt Mahan is the candidate whose record and stated positions diverge least from the analytical framework the state's actual situation requires. That falls considerably short of an endorsement. It constitutes, instead, the best available fit within a field that does not contain a candidate equal to the moment.

The author is a retired senior engineer with more than two decades in radar and signal-processing systems engineering and writes on public-policy and fiscal-governance topics for civic-journalism venues. Analysis presented here applies the same systems-engineering framework — multi-source evidence integration and quantified uncertainty under conflicting indicators — used in defense and aerospace decision support. Primary sources are listed below; numerical figures are drawn from official state, federal, and academic publications and have been cross-checked across at least two independent sources where possible.

Sources

1. Legislative Analyst's Office. "The 2026-27 Budget: Overview of the Governor's Budget." January 13, 2026. https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/5101
2. California Budget & Policy Center. "First Look: Understanding the Governor's Proposed 2026-27 California Budget." January 2026. https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/first-look-understanding-the-governors-proposed-2026-27-california-budget/
3. Walters, Dan. "What's worse for a governor running for president, raising taxes or leaving a deficit?" CalMatters Commentary. April 2026. https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/04/newsom-final-budget-taxes-deficit/
4. CalMatters. "California Voter Guide 2026: Governor." Updated May 2026. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/governor/
5. KQED. "Voter Guide on the Candidates Competing for California's Governor in 2026." May 2026. https://www.kqed.org/voterguide/california/governor
6. KPBS Public Media. "2026 Primary Election: California governor race explainer." May 4, 2026. https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2026/05/04/2026-primary-election-california-governor-race-explainer
7. California Secretary of State. "Governor Candidate Statements — Official Voter Information Guide, June 2, 2026 Primary Election." https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/candidates/governor-candidate-statements.htm
8. Public Policy Institute of California. "Public Pensions in California." https://www.ppic.org/publication/public-pensions-in-california/
9. Rauh, Joshua. "California's Pension Indigestion: Appetite for Fine Dining While Stuck on a Fast Food Budget." Hoover Institution. https://www.hoover.org/research/californias-pension-indigestion-appetite-fine-dining-while-stuck-fast-food-budget
10. Hoeffel, John. "How Gavin Newsom's budget sidesteps the growing cost of CalPERS pensions, for one year." CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/politics/2024/04/calpers-pension-cost/
11. Shasta Unfiltered. "California's Exodus Continues" — citing California Department of Finance and U.S. Census Bureau data. April 2026. https://www.shastaunfiltered.com/post/california-s-exodus-continues
12. Greszler, Rachel. "If You Tax Them, They Will Run: Millions of Americans Flee from California and New York." The Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/if-you-tax-them-they-will-run-millions-americans-flee-california-and-new-york
13. YourTaxBase. "California Tax Exodus: Where Earners Go (2026)" — IRS migration data analysis. February 2026. https://yourtaxbase.com/blog/why-people-are-leaving-california-tax-exodus-2026
14. Americans for Tax Reform. "California Wealth Tax Is Pushing People Out of the State." January 15, 2026. https://atr.org/california-wealth-tax-driving-people-out-of-state/
15. California Globe. "California's Proposed 2026 Billionaire Tax Act: A Fast Track to Economic Exodus in the Golden State." February 23, 2026. https://californiaglobe.com/fr/californias-proposed-2026-billionaire-tax-act-a-fast-track-to-economic-exodus-in-the-golden-state/
16. Fox News Digital. "Tech insider warns California tax hikes will trigger mass billionaire exit." January 9, 2026. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/blue-states-billionaire-exodus-about-get-much-worse-2026-warns-insider
17. WeHo Online. "2025 Exodus Out Of California Continues." January 5, 2026. https://wehoonline.com/2025-exodus-out-of-california-continues/
18. Sheeler, Andrew. "Newsom is set to unveil his last budget. An $18 billion deficit looms." CalMatters. January 6, 2026. https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/01/gavin-newsom-politics-budget-deficit/
19. Wiley, Joe; Wire reports. "Candidates for California governor tangle in testy debate with mail voting already underway." PBS NewsHour. May 5, 2026. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/candidates-for-california-governor-tangle-in-testy-debate-with-mail-voting-already-underway
20. CNN Politics. "Key moments from CNN's California governor primary debate." May 5, 2026. https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/05/politics/takeaways-cnn-california-governor-debate
21. California State Controller's Office. "The Impact of Migration on California Income Tax Revenues." https://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-EO/Spotlight/Taxes_and_Migration.pdf
22. Public Policy Institute of California. "Californians and Their Government — Statewide Survey." February 2026. https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-february-2026/
23. Wikipedia. "2026 California gubernatorial election." Accessed May 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_California_gubernatorial_election