What is the story about?
For nearly three decades, California served as both the birthplace and the operational heart of Google.
Founded in 1998 by Stanford University graduate students Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the company grew from a small search engine project built in a Menlo Park garage into one of the world’s most powerful technology firms, now valued at close to $4 trillion.
The rise of Google helped establish Northern California — and Silicon Valley in particular — as the global epicentre of the internet economy.
Yet, as of this year, both of Google’s co-founders appear to be loosening their long-standing ties to the state where they built their wealth.
Towards the end of 2025, numerous limited liability companies (LLCs) connected to both Page and Brin either shut down, became inactive, or were formally moved out of California.
According to documents reviewed by
The New York Times, 15 California-based LLCs linked to Brin were either terminated or converted into Nevada entities in the 10 days leading up to Christmas.
Seven of these companies were reportedly responsible for overseeing assets such as one of Brin’s superyachts and his interest in a private aviation terminal at San Jose International Airport.
Page followed a similar path. More than 45 LLCs associated with him filed paperwork in December 2025 indicating that they were either becoming inactive or relocating out of California.
Around the same time, a trust connected to Page purchased a $71.9 million mansion in Miami’s Coconut Grove neighborhood, according to property records reviewed by The New York Times.
In addition to their individual corporate changes, a business entity jointly managed by both founders also changed its registration status.
T-Rex LLC, formed in 2006 and previously listed in California filings as being managed by Page and Brin from a Palo Alto address, converted into a Delaware-based company named T-Rex Holdings on December 24, 2025.
The new filing listed its principal office in Reno, Nevada, while Page and Brin remained listed as managers.
The filing described T-Rex Holdings as a “management company.” Although its specific activities are unclear, the entity appears to fit the pattern of how ultra-wealthy individuals often use LLCs to manage investments and hold assets with limited public disclosure.
The name “T-Rex” may reference “Stan,” a bronze Tyrannosaurus rex statue that stands at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, California.
While Page and Brin still own homes in California and retain some personal and professional connections to the state, the scale and timing of these moves indicate a deliberate effort to reduce their formal presence there.
The Wall Street Journal previously reported on Page’s Miami property purchase, while Business Insider covered details of the shifting corporate registrations linked to both founders.
The primary driver behind these changes is a proposed California ballot initiative backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW).
The measure would impose a one-time 5 per cent tax on individuals with assets exceeding $1 billion. Roughly 200 California residents are estimated to fall into this category.
If the proposal secures enough signatures, it will appear on the state ballot in November 2026.
Should voters approve it, the tax would apply retroactively to anyone who was a California resident as of January 1, 2026. Those affected would then have five years to pay the levy.
The initiative is designed to help address California’s projected multibillion-dollar budget shortfall, particularly in the healthcare sector, as federal funding cuts loom.
California determines residency using several factors, including how much time a person spends in the state and whether they maintain substantial business operations there.
Venture capitalist Peter Thiel recently announced that he had opened an office for his family investment firm in Miami.
David Sacks, a tech investor and White House adviser on artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency, unveiled a new office for his venture capital firm, Craft Ventures, in Austin, Texas.
However, the actions of Page and Brin have drawn particular attention due to both their enormous combined wealth — estimated by Forbes to exceed $518 billion — and their deep association with California’s technology industry.
Concerns about the potential impact of the wealth tax have also reached California’s political leadership. On December 11 last year, celebrity attorney Alex Spiro sent a letter to Governor Gavin Newsom urging him to halt the proposed measure.
“It will trigger an exodus of capital and innovation from California,” Spiro wrote. “Our clients have made clear they will permanently relocate if subjected to this tax.”
Newsom has publicly criticised the proposal, describing it as poor policy and warning that it could push billionaires to seek residence in states with more favourable tax regimes.
US Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat whose district includes parts of Silicon Valley, has defended the initiative. His stance has drawn backlash from tech investors and entrepreneurs, some of whom have discussed funding a challenger to his congressional seat.
The proposed wealth tax has generated sharp reactions across the tech industry and among prominent business leaders.
Reid Hoffman, the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn and a longtime Silicon Valley resident, has been particularly critical of the proposal.
“Poorly designed taxes incentivise avoidance, capital flight, and distortions that ultimately raise less revenue,” Hoffman posted on social media.
In contrast, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, one of California’s wealthiest executives, expressed acceptance of the idea in an interview with Bloomberg Television.
“We chose to live in Silicon Valley and whatever taxes they would like to apply, so be it,” he said, adding that he was “perfectly fine” with it.
SEIU-UHW officials, meanwhile, have pushed back against claims that the wealth tax is causing a mass departure of billionaires from the state. Suzanne Jimenez, the union’s chief of staff, argued that reports of an exodus are exaggerated.
“The overwhelming majority of billionaires have chosen to stay in California past the Jan. 1 deadline,” she said.
“Only a very small percentage left before the deadline, despite weeks of Chicken Little talking points claiming a modest tax would trigger a mass departure.”
Beyond the basic structure of the 5 per cent levy, critics argue that the proposed tax contains a technical flaw that could have severe consequences for founders like Page and Brin due to how it treats dual-class voting shares.
Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan has highlighted this issue, warning that the legislation could effectively force the Google founders to either leave California or give up a significant portion of their Alphabet holdings.
Each of the founders owns roughly 3 oer cent of Alphabet’s outstanding shares, which are worth about $120 billion at the company’s current valuation. However, their shares carry 10 times the voting power of standard shares, giving them approximately 30 per cent control over the company’s voting rights.
Section 50303(c)(3)(C) of the proposed legislation states, “For any interests that confer voting or other direct control rights, the percentage of the business entity owned by the taxpayer shall be presumed to be not less than the taxpayer’s percentage of the overall voting or other direct control rights.”
Under this framework, the state would calculate a taxpayer’s ownership based on voting power rather than economic stake. Applied to Page and Brin, this would mean their wealth for tax purposes would be assessed as though they each owned 30 per cent of Alphabet, not 3% per cent
A 5 per cent tax on that valuation would result in a bill of roughly $60 billion for each founder.
“That’s 50% of their actual Alphabet holdings—wiped out by a ‘5%’ tax,” Tan wrote on X.
Tan has argued that this approach clashes with the corporate governance structures commonly used in Silicon Valley, where founders often retain supervoting shares to maintain long-term control while raising capital from public markets and venture investors.
Companies such as Meta, Snap, and numerous startups rely on similar arrangements to shield leadership from short-term shareholder pressures and allow for long-term strategic planning.
According to Tan, the proposal would penalise this model and force founders to choose between keeping control of their companies and remaining California residents.
“The wealth tax is poorly defined and designed to drive tech innovation out of California,” he concluded.
Dual-class share structures have been a defining feature of many technology companies for decades. Supporters argue that they allow founders to pursue ambitious projects without being constrained by short-term market expectations.
Google’s own history offers examples of how this structure enabled long-term investments, including the development of Android, the acquisition of YouTube, and more recently, large-scale artificial intelligence initiatives.
Critics of the wealth tax believe that targeting voting control rather than economic ownership could undermine this model by making it financially unsustainable for founders to remain in California.
While Page and Brin stepped down from their executive roles at Google and its parent company Alphabet in 2019, their influence remains substantial. Brin has returned to more hands-on work at Google, particularly in AI-related projects.
Page, though no longer involved in daily operations, continues to serve as a controlling shareholder.
According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, Page and Brin are the second- and fourth-richest individuals in the world, respectively, with net worths exceeding $250 billion each.
With inputs from agencies
Founded in 1998 by Stanford University graduate students Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the company grew from a small search engine project built in a Menlo Park garage into one of the world’s most powerful technology firms, now valued at close to $4 trillion.
The rise of Google helped establish Northern California — and Silicon Valley in particular — as the global epicentre of the internet economy.
Yet, as of this year, both of Google’s co-founders appear to be loosening their long-standing ties to the state where they built their wealth.
How have Google co-founders been exiting California?
Towards the end of 2025, numerous limited liability companies (LLCs) connected to both Page and Brin either shut down, became inactive, or were formally moved out of California.
(Left) Sergey Brin attends the 2025 Breakthrough Prize ceremony in Santa Monica, California, US, April 5, 2025; (right) Larry Page, CEO and Co-founder of Alphabet, at the 2015 Fortune Global Forum in San Francisco, California, November 2, 2015. File Images/Reuters
According to documents reviewed by
Seven of these companies were reportedly responsible for overseeing assets such as one of Brin’s superyachts and his interest in a private aviation terminal at San Jose International Airport.
Page followed a similar path. More than 45 LLCs associated with him filed paperwork in December 2025 indicating that they were either becoming inactive or relocating out of California.
Around the same time, a trust connected to Page purchased a $71.9 million mansion in Miami’s Coconut Grove neighborhood, according to property records reviewed by The New York Times.
In addition to their individual corporate changes, a business entity jointly managed by both founders also changed its registration status.
T-Rex LLC, formed in 2006 and previously listed in California filings as being managed by Page and Brin from a Palo Alto address, converted into a Delaware-based company named T-Rex Holdings on December 24, 2025.
The new filing listed its principal office in Reno, Nevada, while Page and Brin remained listed as managers.
The filing described T-Rex Holdings as a “management company.” Although its specific activities are unclear, the entity appears to fit the pattern of how ultra-wealthy individuals often use LLCs to manage investments and hold assets with limited public disclosure.
The name “T-Rex” may reference “Stan,” a bronze Tyrannosaurus rex statue that stands at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, California.
While Page and Brin still own homes in California and retain some personal and professional connections to the state, the scale and timing of these moves indicate a deliberate effort to reduce their formal presence there.
The Wall Street Journal previously reported on Page’s Miami property purchase, while Business Insider covered details of the shifting corporate registrations linked to both founders.
What is behind this move?
The primary driver behind these changes is a proposed California ballot initiative backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW).
The measure would impose a one-time 5 per cent tax on individuals with assets exceeding $1 billion. Roughly 200 California residents are estimated to fall into this category.
If the proposal secures enough signatures, it will appear on the state ballot in November 2026.
Should voters approve it, the tax would apply retroactively to anyone who was a California resident as of January 1, 2026. Those affected would then have five years to pay the levy.
The initiative is designed to help address California’s projected multibillion-dollar budget shortfall, particularly in the healthcare sector, as federal funding cuts loom.
California determines residency using several factors, including how much time a person spends in the state and whether they maintain substantial business operations there.
Venture capitalist Peter Thiel recently announced that he had opened an office for his family investment firm in Miami.
David Sacks, a tech investor and White House adviser on artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency, unveiled a new office for his venture capital firm, Craft Ventures, in Austin, Texas.
However, the actions of Page and Brin have drawn particular attention due to both their enormous combined wealth — estimated by Forbes to exceed $518 billion — and their deep association with California’s technology industry.
How has California Governor Gavin Newsom reacted?
Concerns about the potential impact of the wealth tax have also reached California’s political leadership. On December 11 last year, celebrity attorney Alex Spiro sent a letter to Governor Gavin Newsom urging him to halt the proposed measure.
“It will trigger an exodus of capital and innovation from California,” Spiro wrote. “Our clients have made clear they will permanently relocate if subjected to this tax.”
Newsom has publicly criticised the proposal, describing it as poor policy and warning that it could push billionaires to seek residence in states with more favourable tax regimes.
US Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat whose district includes parts of Silicon Valley, has defended the initiative. His stance has drawn backlash from tech investors and entrepreneurs, some of whom have discussed funding a challenger to his congressional seat.
The proposed wealth tax has generated sharp reactions across the tech industry and among prominent business leaders.
Reid Hoffman, the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn and a longtime Silicon Valley resident, has been particularly critical of the proposal.
“Poorly designed taxes incentivise avoidance, capital flight, and distortions that ultimately raise less revenue,” Hoffman posted on social media.
In contrast, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, one of California’s wealthiest executives, expressed acceptance of the idea in an interview with Bloomberg Television.
“We chose to live in Silicon Valley and whatever taxes they would like to apply, so be it,” he said, adding that he was “perfectly fine” with it.
SEIU-UHW officials, meanwhile, have pushed back against claims that the wealth tax is causing a mass departure of billionaires from the state. Suzanne Jimenez, the union’s chief of staff, argued that reports of an exodus are exaggerated.
“The overwhelming majority of billionaires have chosen to stay in California past the Jan. 1 deadline,” she said.
“Only a very small percentage left before the deadline, despite weeks of Chicken Little talking points claiming a modest tax would trigger a mass departure.”
How does the California ballot initiative target the Google co-founders?
Beyond the basic structure of the 5 per cent levy, critics argue that the proposed tax contains a technical flaw that could have severe consequences for founders like Page and Brin due to how it treats dual-class voting shares.
Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan has highlighted this issue, warning that the legislation could effectively force the Google founders to either leave California or give up a significant portion of their Alphabet holdings.
Each of the founders owns roughly 3 oer cent of Alphabet’s outstanding shares, which are worth about $120 billion at the company’s current valuation. However, their shares carry 10 times the voting power of standard shares, giving them approximately 30 per cent control over the company’s voting rights.
Section 50303(c)(3)(C) of the proposed legislation states, “For any interests that confer voting or other direct control rights, the percentage of the business entity owned by the taxpayer shall be presumed to be not less than the taxpayer’s percentage of the overall voting or other direct control rights.”
Under this framework, the state would calculate a taxpayer’s ownership based on voting power rather than economic stake. Applied to Page and Brin, this would mean their wealth for tax purposes would be assessed as though they each owned 30 per cent of Alphabet, not 3% per cent
A 5 per cent tax on that valuation would result in a bill of roughly $60 billion for each founder.
“That’s 50% of their actual Alphabet holdings—wiped out by a ‘5%’ tax,” Tan wrote on X.
Larry and Sergey can’t stay in California since the wealth tax as written would confiscate 50% of their Alphabet shares.
Each own ~3% of Alphabet's stock, worth about $120 billion each at today's ~$4 trillion market cap.
But because their shares have 10x voting power, the… pic.twitter.com/4DYDDmCDl4
— Garry Tan (@garrytan) January 9, 2026
Tan has argued that this approach clashes with the corporate governance structures commonly used in Silicon Valley, where founders often retain supervoting shares to maintain long-term control while raising capital from public markets and venture investors.
Companies such as Meta, Snap, and numerous startups rely on similar arrangements to shield leadership from short-term shareholder pressures and allow for long-term strategic planning.
According to Tan, the proposal would penalise this model and force founders to choose between keeping control of their companies and remaining California residents.
“The wealth tax is poorly defined and designed to drive tech innovation out of California,” he concluded.
Dual-class share structures have been a defining feature of many technology companies for decades. Supporters argue that they allow founders to pursue ambitious projects without being constrained by short-term market expectations.
Google’s own history offers examples of how this structure enabled long-term investments, including the development of Android, the acquisition of YouTube, and more recently, large-scale artificial intelligence initiatives.
Critics of the wealth tax believe that targeting voting control rather than economic ownership could undermine this model by making it financially unsustainable for founders to remain in California.
While Page and Brin stepped down from their executive roles at Google and its parent company Alphabet in 2019, their influence remains substantial. Brin has returned to more hands-on work at Google, particularly in AI-related projects.
Page, though no longer involved in daily operations, continues to serve as a controlling shareholder.
According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, Page and Brin are the second- and fourth-richest individuals in the world, respectively, with net worths exceeding $250 billion each.
With inputs from agencies
