The Defending Education reports show the NEA and AFT, plus state affiliates, have funneled more than $1 billion of dues money into progressive causes, Democratic campaigns, and advocacy groups over the past decade, raising questions about priorities and transparency.

Two new reports from Defending Education lay out a decade of political spending by the nation’s largest teachers unions. The research tracks donations and transfers that critics say turn dues collected from classroom educators into a vast political budget. Reporters noted the findings and public records used to document the flows.

At the national level, the NEA and AFT funneled roughly $669 million to left-leaning political groups, advocacy organizations, and campaigns since 2015. Add state and local affiliates and the total climbs past the billion-dollar mark. Those numbers come from federal filings and campaign finance records compiled by the watchdog group.

That is not a typo—one billion dollars sourced from organizations that claim to fight for teacher pay and smaller classes. For many Republicans, the scale and direction of that spending reads like a bait-and-switch. Educators who pay dues have a right to know whether their money is being turned into political leverage.

The reports trace a sprawling web of recipients. More than $85 million went directly to Democratic Party entities at federal, state, and local levels, not counting individual candidate checks. Tens of millions more flowed to the Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC, the party’s principal committees for congressional races.

Unions also routed tens of millions to progressive networks and advocacy groups. The State Engagement Fund received over $60 million, and For Our Future Action Fund and its affiliates took in more than $40 million. Other recipients named include Color of Change + PAC, Indivisible, the National Center for Transgender Equality, Planned Parenthood, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, the New Venture Fund, and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation.

Beyond those groups, spending supported climate campaigns and ballot efforts opposing school choice, often funneled through nonprofit intermediaries and political action committees. The pattern shows repeated use of clearinghouses and donor networks rather than direct classroom bargaining or local teacher support. That raises questions about priorities when pension and classroom needs compete for resources.

“Show me your budget and I will show you what you value; and what the teachers unions value is political power and advancing a left wing, social justice agenda. Parents, families, and communities have little to no counter to the influence that teachers union dollars have on state and local campaigns. Gone are the days of unions just advocating for higher wages, better working conditions, and good health insurance; they are a political machine focused on fomenting a ‘political revolution.'”

The phrase “political machine” captures why conservatives see this as a problem rather than routine advocacy. A sustained infrastructure built to advance a single ideological project looks very different from an organization solely focused on wages, benefits, or class size. For critics, the classroom becomes the fundraising arm for a political ecosystem.

Signs of strain in the Democratic coalition have surfaced elsewhere, and some party figures have openly critiqued direction. Those intra-party tensions help explain why union spending attracts so much attention from observers who see funds steered to partisan aims. The reports connect the money trail to long-term strategic goals rather than ad hoc support for teachers.

“It’s time to dispense with the myth that unions care whatsoever about teachers’ best interests. Educators are victims of a bait-and-switch: instead of their dues going to advocate for increased pay or improved working environments, they’re being spent advancing a hard-left political agenda, underwriting causes such as climate change, gender activism, and abortion (as well as supporting progressive politicians at all levels).”

Calls for clearer accounting follow naturally from those findings, since many teachers have little choice but to pay dues where right-to-work laws do not apply. When dues are mandatory, members’ money can be swept into political activity they do not support. That dynamic feeds a narrative about power and representation that resonates across conservative circles.

The timing matters. Spending revelations arrived as unions and allied groups prepared for May Day mobilizations and other political activity. Observers point to coordination with activist networks and large-scale demonstrations that map onto the donation patterns. For critics, the evidence suggests political mobilization organized and financed by dues dollars.

“It’s very clear that teachers unions seek to destroy our country by turning our students against it.”

Those are sharp words, and the spending figures give them new force for people who see ideological capture in public institutions. Questions remain about the split between NEA and AFT, which state affiliates were the biggest spenders, and whether rank-and-file educators were informed before their dues funded contentious ballot campaigns. Transparency advocates say the public deserves those answers.

NEA leaders appeared publicly at rallies defending public education, but the reports note there was little formal response explaining how political spending fits the unions’ stated missions. With billions flowing into national political structures, the debate shifts from abstract policy fights to concrete accounting about how union budgets are prioritized and reported.