National Education Association sees teacher exodus as political spending balloons

NEA has lost nearly 400,000 members since its peak in 2009. It could be because just 9% of the union’s spending is on representing teachers – with the rest on politics, administration and other union leader priorities.

The National Education Association’s own federal reports show the union is not focused on teachers.

NEA continued losing members in 2024, according to its federal report filed with the U.S. Department of Labor at the end of November. Losing 17,895 members in the 2024 fiscal year alone, the union’s membership has dropped by 395,327 education workers since its peak in 2009. That’s more than a 12% drop.

It’s no surprise, given NEA’s failure to prioritize teachers and their needs. Its federal filing revealed the following:

• Just 9% of NEA’s spending is on teacher representation, which should be its core focus
• Its spending on politics and other contributions is more than four times higher than its spending on representation
• NEA lavishes six-figure salaries on 410 of its own officers and employees
• The union spent nearly $5.3 million on travel and food for unspecified purposes

And while membership decreases, NEA dues increase – meaning it’s charging those members that remain more to cover its exorbitant spending.

NEA was granted a federal charter in 1906. At the time, its federally established purposes were to “elevate the character and advance the interests of the profession of teaching” and “promote the cause of education in the United States.”

But according to the union’s own reporting, those are no longer NEA’s focus. Its federal charter should be reevaluated.

Just 9% of NEA’s spending was on representing teachers

NEA spent more than $432 million in 2024. Yet not even $40 million was on “representational activities” – which should be the core purpose of the union. The rest was spent on politics, administration and other union leadership priorities.

To put this in perspective, the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance states at least 65% of a nonprofit’s total expenses should be on program activities.

While the Wise Giving Alliance evaluates spending by charities, it stands to reason NEA’s spending of just 9% on representation should be a cause for concern among members.

NEA spent over 4X as much on politics and “contributions” as it did on representing teachers in 2024

NEA spent over $39.15 million on “political activities and lobbying” in 2024, along with an additional $127.97 million on other “contributions, gifts, and grants,” which are often political in nature – such as the $500,000 the union funneled to the main super PAC supporting the Kamala Harris campaign.

That means the union spent over four times more on politics and contributions than it did on representing members. And that $167.12 million encompassed 39% of NEA’s total spending in 2024.

The largest recipient of NEA’s political spending was its own super PAC, the NEA Advocacy Fund, which received $18.9 million. From there, the money can be spent on any political cause or candidate the union desires, regardless of members’ own preferences. It also spent $9.9 million on ballot initiatives across the nation.

Its disbursements for “contributions, gifts, and grants” included a number of self-proclaimed “progressive” organizations, including the following:

• $3.5 million to For Our Future Action Fund, which describes itself as a “people-driven organization committed to serving progressive values and causes.”
• $1.1 million to America Works USA, whose “mission is to find unique and creative ways to promote progressive policy.”
• $500,000 to the Center for American Progress, which is “dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through bold, progressive ideas.”

NEA also funneled $500,000 to Future Forward, a super PAC which the New York Times called presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ “main allied group.”

Hundreds of NEA’s own officers and staff pull in six-figure salaries

While NEA’s members may not be seeing the benefit of spending hundreds of dollars on union dues each year, its own officers and employees sure do. At least 410 of NEA’s own employees make over $100,000. At least 88 make over $200,000, with its president, Rebecca Pringle, pulling in $481,161.

In total, NEA spent more than $77 million on its own officer and employee salaries. The average teacher salary in Illinois is less than $76,000, yet their money is funding NEA’s very generous salaries.

NEA spent nearly $5.3 million on travel and food for unspecified purposes

Some of NEA’s travel and food expenses in 2024 were itemized on its federal report for reasons such as “Annual Mtg admin” or “Membership recruiting.”

But nearly $5.3 million for airlines, car rentals, catering, hotels, railroad and other transportation or travel arrangement was not. Examples of these unspecified disbursements included $774,705 to American Airlines, $714,513 to Hyatt Regency Orlando and $205,459 to a catering company. NEA delineated no purpose for these disbursements in its federal filing, meaning members have no way of knowing whether the spending truly was related to typical union activities.

NEA is pulling in more money in dues to make up for falling membership rates and exorbitant spending

Despite declining membership, NEA is generating more in member dues than ever. The union took in more than $381 million in 2024, while spending just $39.97 million on representing members.

That means just 9% of what NEA took from teachers in dues was then spent on representing them – what should be its core purpose.

NEA’s federal charter should be reevaluated

NEA was granted a federal charter by an act of Congress in 1906. A federal charter is “a federal statute that establishes a corporation.” At the time, NEA’s federally established purposes were to “elevate the character and advance the interests of the profession of teaching” and “promote the cause of education in the United States.”

NEA is the only labor union with a federal charter, and it has clearly strayed from its intended purpose. It promotes politics and political entities over teachers and the education profession. The incoming Trump administration and its allies in Congress should reevaluate the federal stamp of approval on this overtly political entity.