The report from Defending Education documents how major teachers’ unions redirected vast sums of dues and PAC money into Democratic politics, nonprofit advocacy, and activist networks, laying out specific dollar amounts, recipients, and examples that show a political strategy rather than a narrow focus on classroom needs.
The receipts are explicit: since August 2015 the NEA and AFT reported transferring $669,324,912.33 in member dues and PAC funds into left-wing political entities, far-left nonprofits, and Democratic campaigns, and when state and local affiliates are counted the total tops $1 billion. That scale matters because teacher dues were collected under the assumption they would go to pay, benefits, and contract improvements. Many rank-and-file educators would be surprised to learn how much of their money ended up funding national party infrastructure and ideological groups instead of direct classroom support.
Defending Education’s listing highlights big-ticket transfers to national political vehicles that are clearly partisan in purpose. Recipients included the State Engagement Fund with $60,525,000, the For Our Future Action Fund with $44,732,078, the Senate Majority PAC with $32,655,000, the House Majority PAC with $25,842,790, and the Strategic Victory Fund with $19,300,000. Those line items read like political war chest allocations, not membership services or collective bargaining expenses aimed at improving teachers’ lives.
The unions also steered more than $85 million straight into Democratic Party entities at multiple levels, not counting individual candidate donations. Examples named include a $923,500 transfer to the Biden Victory Fund, $444,250 to the Hillary Victory Fund, $725,000 to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, and $400,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative. For teachers who thought dues would be used to boost classroom resources, these are jarring realities about where the cash actually flowed.
The report catalogs ideological spending as well as electoral spending, showing money going to advocacy groups and activist training networks. Media Matters for America received $700,000, the Sixteen Thirty Fund in the Arabella network received $4,433,000, Color of Change and its PAC took $3,310,000, and Planned Parenthood Votes got $350,000. Those grants underscore a strategic choice: funding advocacy and culture-shaping efforts rather than focusing exclusively on schools, classrooms, or compensation.
Some of the grants have specific, controversial targets that amplify the political angle. The NEA paid the Trevor Project $100,000, and the unions made payments such as $7,418 to Ibram X. Kendi and $29,250 to Gender Inclusivity LLC. They also sent $1,755,000 to the Midwest Academy, a group described as training activists for May Day mobilization. These are not routine union services; they are political and social efforts with clear partisan overtones.
The unions spent heavily to oppose school choice measures in multiple states, showing a preference to protect traditional public systems rather than let parents choose alternatives. Support Our Schools Nebraska got $4,298,076 to help repeal a school choice law, Protect Our Schools Kentucky received $7,215,000 to fight voucher legislation, Public Schools Strong took $4,137,500 to campaign against school choice in Colorado, and Save Our Public Schools got $5,400,000. That sequence looks like a coordinated campaign to use dues money to block education options families support.
Local spending patterns mirror national behavior, with unions backing Democratic organizations and leaving little or nothing for Republican groups. The Ohio Education Association gave $2.9 million to the Ohio Democrat Party and $23,249 to the Ohio House Republican Alliance, a ratio of 125 to 1. The Chicago Teachers Union funded local progressive caucuses and alliances while records show no dollars to the Illinois Republican Party. These allocations highlight how union money is used as a political tool with predictable partisan outcomes.
The watchdog commentary in the report is blunt. Rhyen Staley said: “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. 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 quote captures the central charge: funds meant to represent educators are being redirected toward broader political aims.
Defending Education’s president Nicole Neily echoed that argument in sharp terms: “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.” Those words reflect a conservative critique that union budgets have been weaponized for partisan goals rather than member-centered priorities.
The dollar totals and named recipients paint a clear picture of priorities chosen by union leadership. For teachers and the public, the core issue is whether dues dollars should be spent on classroom needs and compensation or used as a vehicle to build political influence and fund ideological causes. That choice has consequences for education policy, taxpayer perceptions, and the trust of union members who expect their money to support schools and teachers first.
Add comment