This Left-Wing Education Juggernaut Doesn’t Deserve Federal Backing

L ast Wednesday, Senator Marsha Blackburn and Representative Mark Harris introduced the National Education Association Charter Repeal Act in an attempt to revoke the NEA’s national charter, the third such attempt in four years. While this is certainly a headline-grabbing proposition, what would such a revocation actually mean for the nation’s largest teachers’ union?

Admittedly, federal charters are largely symbolic — status symbols granted to charitable and patriotic groups — and the NEA is among over 90 organizations that have one. But they’re not powerless. They confer both a special national distinction — helping to attract members and donors to contribute to the organization’s “noble” cause — and, in the NEA’s charter, tax-exempt status on their land and property holdings in Washington, D.C.

The NEA received its charter in 1906 to “elevate the character and advance the interests of the profession of teaching” and to “promote the cause of education in the United States.” Other groups that were granted congressional charters around the same time as the NEA include the Boy Scouts of America and the American National Red Cross. Notably, many other charters include restrictions, particularly on political activity and lobbying; however, the NEA’s charter includes no such limitations.

Today’s NEA, a lobbying and funding juggernaut with almost 3 million members, bears little resemblance to the humble professional organization of ten local teacher associations with approximately 5,000 members on which this charter was bestowed 120 years ago.

Ostensibly an educational organization, its real purpose is political. It spends millions on lobbying and campaign contributions, with over 97 percent of this money going to Democrats in 2024. Its recently released 2025 resolutions include characterizing President Trump’s actions as “facism” (their misspelling), backing the “No Kings” protests in Los Angeles, and calling efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education “racist” (spelled correctly).

Indeed, a command search of terms in the document reveals the word “protest” appearing more frequently than the word “test” (which the organization generally opposes). Trump’s name comes up seven times in the NEA’s resolutions, while the words “reading,” “math,” and “achievement” are nowhere to be found.

This isn’t anything new for the NEA. Resolutions and calls to action from previous years have included antisemitic business items, supporting abortion, and promoting gun control, among other salient political issues. Yet when it comes to crises in education, such as chronic absenteeism and declining NAEP scores, the “education” group is decidedly more quiet.

Repealing its charter would send the clear message that Congress disapproves of the activities of the NEA and remove its distinction as a nationally chartered organization. This act, however, would only minorly impact the lobbying activity and leave the financial health of the organization functionally untouched. Now a 501(c)(5), the NEA would maintain its tax-exempt status and continue its operations focusing on political activism over education.

If lawmakers want to alter what the NEA does, rather than outright revoke their charter, they could instead revise it. The NEA is unworthy of its federal charter, but it does give the federal government power over the organization. As such, lawmakers could place limitations on the NEA’s lobbying and political activity and, importantly, authorize the attorney general to enforce these requirements. Tinkering with its charter might more effectively kneecap its political activities.

With the political winds at the GOP’s back and the NEA’s increasingly partisan antics on full display, perhaps it’s possible we may see this bill through, and that effort should be rightfully applauded. There have been past controversies where Congress has threatened to revoke charters for much less.

Barring the passing of this act, a handful of other policies, if pursued by the GOP, could diminish the all-too-powerful teachers’ unions: reduce mandatory membership (thus striking a blow to their funding streams), target special union privileges in state law, and limit collective bargaining power. At the very least, this current bill or future ones will amplify the truth that the NEA does not stand for teachers or students but only for progressivism and political posturing.

Daniel Buck is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the director of the Conservative Education Reform Network, where Anna Low is the program manager.