Teachers’ Unions Shift Focus from Education to Politics Amid Declining Membership

In recent years, America’s two largest teachers’ unions have faced a significant decline in membership following a Supreme Court ruling that struck down mandatory union dues. Despite this challenge, the National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) have redirected substantial financial resources toward political causes, according to a new report from the conservative watchdog group Defending Ed. The report reveals that since 2022, these unions have collectively spent approximately $43.5 million funding political action committees and left-leaning organizations, including think tanks in Washington D.C. This reallocation of funds raises important questions about the unions’ priorities and their commitment to educational improvement versus political advocacy.

The report’s findings suggest a concerning disconnect between the stated mission of teachers’ unions and their actual spending habits. Defending Ed researcher Rhyen Staley criticized the unions, stating, “It is clear that the teachers unions’ priorities are advancing far-left politics and radical social justice issues, not the education of children.” Staley characterized this spending as “a slap in the face to families and teachers who want to focus on helping students improve their reading and math skills,” and called for congressional action to address what the group sees as misuse of public funds. This criticism reflects growing tension between traditional educational goals—like improving literacy and mathematics skills—and the broader political agenda that these unions have increasingly embraced through their financial contributions.

The financial support from these teachers’ unions extends to a wide array of progressive organizations and political committees. According to the report, left-wing philanthropic networks like the Tides Network, New Venture Fund, Sixteen-Thirty Fund, and Future Forward (which served as the main Super PAC supporting Kamala Harris’s 2024 presidential campaign after President Biden withdrew) received nearly $1.5 million from the NEA and AFT. Additional substantial donations went to organizations focused on electing Democratic candidates, including the Democratic Governors Association and the Democrats’ House Majority and Senate Majority PACs. The unions also directed close to a million dollars to influential progressive think tanks like the Center for American Progress and its advocacy arm, demonstrating a comprehensive strategy of political engagement across multiple fronts.

Critics of these spending patterns point to a fundamental shift in the unions’ priorities. Aaron Withe, an expert on public-sector unions, noted that the NEA allocates less than 10% of its budget to what he terms “representational activities”—the core functions of supporting teachers in their workplaces. Meanwhile, the union directs 38% of its budget toward political contributions, lobbying efforts, and gifts to left-leaning organizations. This imbalance raises questions about whether the unions are adequately serving their members’ professional needs. “You’d think in light of the decline in union membership in recent years, that they’d start providing value to members that outweighs the cost of membership,” Withe observed, suggesting that the unions might better retain members by focusing more on workplace representation than political activism.

Instead of adapting their strategies to address declining membership, the unions appear to be doubling down on political advocacy for progressive causes. Withe criticized this approach, suggesting that the unions are “appeasing the radical base of union members by advocating for men in women’s sports, transitioning minors, antisemitism and other radical ideological stances.” This characterization reflects the increasingly polarized debate around teachers’ unions and their role in American education and politics. Moreover, Withe suggested that the reported spending represents only “the tip of the iceberg,” pointing out that “thousands of statewide and city and county teachers unions” are likely funding similar causes, amplifying the overall political impact of teacher union money in progressive politics.

The debate over teachers’ union spending highlights broader tensions in American education and politics. Supporters of the unions might argue that political engagement is necessary to advance policies that benefit public education, teachers, and students. Critics, however, see the substantial political contributions as evidence that these organizations have strayed from their core mission of representing educators and improving educational outcomes. What remains clear is that as membership declines following the Supreme Court’s ruling against mandatory dues, the NEA and AFT have chosen to maintain or increase their political spending rather than reallocate resources toward direct member services. This strategy raises important questions about the future of these influential organizations and their role in both education and politics. When contacted for comment, representatives from both the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers did not respond to repeated requests.