From a legal perspective, it will depend on the details of their RSU contracts. It varies widely, but generally speaking these are written in ways that give em

From a legal perspective, it will depend on the details of their RSU contracts. It varies widely, but generally speaking these are written in ways that give employers shockingly few rights. The RSUs at the FAANG that I worked for had all sorts of things in their contract, including that the employer could, at vesting time, choose to deliver either more or fewer shares than the number of vesting units at their sole and absolute discretion. (I spent many years employed by that FAANG, and could not find any employee or former-employee who ever received any number of shares other than exactly the number they expected -- but it was called out very clearly in the documents) From a "Twitter is a going concern" perspective, the company and its technology function today. In a non-functioning state, the assets have materially less value. As in effectively zero value. Therefore, it is in the interests of the new controlling owner to see to it that enough of the current employees remain at least long enough for a decision to be made about which of these employees are wanted long-term. As a result, I anticipate that efforts will be undertaken to see that employees are made close-enough to whole that there is not a larger mass-exodus than the change in the political party of the senior leadership is likely to generate on its own, more or less regardless of whether the employees have any shareholder rights in their RSU contracts.