Teachers’ unions have funneled massive sums into politics while classroom pay and conditions lag, and critics say that money advances a left-wing agenda rather than directly helping teachers or students.
Conservative observers are sounding the alarm over more than $1 billion in political spending traced to the largest teacher organizations since 2015. The Defending Education analysis finds the unions’ political apparatus reaches deep into federal, state, and local races, and the money often flows to progressive causes and candidates. That raises questions about whether dues intended to support educators are instead being repurposed as a partisan war chest.
Teachers already face financial strain in many districts, and union dues add to those pressures. NEA President Becky Pringle told FOX Business that because public schools are under-resourced, “there is an unfortunate expectation that educators will spend their own money on school supplies and equipment.” She added, “It disrespects educators as professionals and undermines their dedication to students. We don’t ask nurses and doctors to provide their own equipment for doing their jobs.”
The NEA’s own numbers show teachers aren’t keeping up with inflation. “In fact, when adjusting for inflation, teachers are making 5% less on average than they did 10 years ago. The national average salary is $69,544, but the average starting salary sits at $44,530, according to NEA data. A majority of districts, about 77%, offer starting salaries under $50,000. Only 16.6% of districts offer salaries over $100,000,” the report states. That gap between pay and rising costs is part of why educators and parents expect union resources to be focused on wages and classrooms.
But the Defending Education report points to a different allocation. It found the American Federation of Teachers and the NEA funneled roughly $669 million to federal political causes and another $336 million to state and local campaigns. Those sums include member money channeled through COPE and PAC accounts, and critics argue many teachers have little say over those decisions.
Rhyen Staley, research director at Defending Education, warns the unions operate like political machines rather than employee advocates. “When you tie in money coming from the state and local level and the political game plan of teacher unions, it’s just one giant political machine that is trying to take control of everything.” That view frames union spending as targeted at shaping policy and electoral outcomes beyond classroom issues.
The report also details where the money lands: more than $85 million went to Democratic Party groups, with additional contributions steering toward climate initiatives, gender activism organizations, and opponents of school choice. Groups cited as recipients include the National Center for Transgender Equality, Planned Parenthood, Color of Change + PAC, and the Sixteen Thirty Fund. For many critics, these donations show a broader ideological investment rather than a narrow focus on teacher pay and school funding.
In several states unions poured resources into fights over school choice, spending millions in targeted contests. The analysis lists roughly $7.2 million spent in Kentucky, $4.3 million in Nebraska, and over $4.2 million in Maine against choice measures. At the local level the report highlights expenditures such as more than $1.3 million tied to a Los Angeles Unified Schools District board race, showing how union dollars can reshape local governance and policy priorities.
Defending Education’s president made the stakes plain in media interviews, saying this isn’t about collective bargaining alone. Nicole Neily told Fox News Digital, “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).” That critique ties the spending directly to a partisan agenda, not workplace advocacy.
Observers also point to public demonstrations and efforts that bring students into political actions, which some see as crossing a line. The report recounts involvement by union-linked groups in broader movements and events, including May Day activities where organizers encouraged student participation in immigration-related protests. Critics argue that using schools and students as political platforms undermines a neutral education environment.
“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.’”
That hardline assessment reflects growing frustration among parents and local leaders who expect schools to focus on academics and safety. When dues are redirected into political campaigns and progressive causes, many feel their priorities are sidelined. The debate now centers on whether union governance and spending transparency can be reformed so member money truly serves educators and students.
Across the spectrum, Americans wrestle with the line between legitimate labor advocacy and partisan activism inside public education. The conversation over union spending is no longer abstract: it impacts school boards, state policy, and the educational choices available to families. For those who view the classroom as a place for neutral instruction rather than political shaping, the report’s findings underscore a need for accountability and clearer separation between union politics and classroom priorities.
