By: Fern Sidman

The U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce subcommittee convened a charged hearing on Tuesday, where Republican leaders pressed legal experts over the growing perception that America’s most powerful teachers’ unions have become political machines at the expense of their members. At the center of the hearing was a heated exchange between House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and labor law specialists, highlighting what Stefanik called “a pattern of union-sanctioned discrimination” against pro-Israel and Jewish educators.

As reported in testimony and exchanges reviewed during the hearing, the discussion reflected not only ideological rifts inside American labor unions but also the rising alarm over antisemitism within institutions tasked with educating future generations. Stefanik’s focus was on the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA)—the nation’s two largest teachers’ unions—both of which she accused of straying from their core mission of representing workers to serve instead as “ideological enforcement arms.”

Stefanik began her questioning by referencing a protest that unfolded last week in New York City. A group of Jewish educators, members of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), rallied outside their union headquarters to voice outrage at what they saw as the union’s betrayal. Their grievance centered on the UFT’s decision to convene an emergency meeting to endorse Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist state assemblyman and mayoral candidate.

Mamdani has repeatedly used the controversial phrase “globalize the intifada,” a slogan widely condemned as antisemitic for its association with violent uprisings against Jews and the Jewish state. For Jewish educators, many of whom have felt increasingly alienated by their unions’ pro-Hamas political stances, the endorsement was salt in an already raw wound.

As Stefanik pointed out during the hearing, while Jewish teachers protested outside headquarters, AFT President Randi Weingarten was seen standing shoulder to shoulder with Mamdani at a rally just blocks away. “These members were rightly upset,” Stefanik told the panel. “They are union dues-paying teachers, and their own leaders were celebrating with a candidate openly hostile to their safety and beliefs.”

In response to Stefanik’s first line of inquiry—whether unions are compelled to make political endorsements—labor law expert Kyle Koeppel Man was blunt. “No, unions are not required to make political endorsements, and it’s inappropriate for them to do so,” he said. His view underscored the argument that unions have drifted far from their foundational mission of collective bargaining, instead inserting themselves into divisive national debates unrelated to classroom conditions or teacher welfare.

Glenn Taubman, a seasoned attorney with more than four decades of experience litigating labor rights cases, echoed that position. “They are not required to make endorsements, and in the world we live in now, it is divisive and hateful to support Hamas and communist antisemites like Mr. Mamdani,” he told Stefanik.

The framing was stark: union leaders, by taking public stands on incendiary foreign policy issues, risk alienating and even discriminating against their Jewish members who feel misrepresented.

The next issue raised by Stefanik went to the financial heart of union power. She asked whether Jewish teachers opposed to their unions’ political stances could opt out of paying dues that subsidize these activities.

Taubman drew a distinction between public-sector and private-sector employees. “For public sector employees, like the New York City teachers, they’re covered by the Janus ruling,” he explained, referring to the 2018 Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME, which held that forcing public employees to pay union fees violated their First Amendment rights. “They have the right as a matter of free speech and association not to pay the union,” he said.

However, for private-sector educators, the situation is different. “If they’re not in a right-to-work state, they can be forced to pay or be fired,” Taubman continued. He added that it “would be nice to apply Janus to the private sector, where private people’s constitutional rights could also be protected.”

For Stefanik, the issue raised profound constitutional questions. “How is it remotely constitutional for Jewish teachers to be compelled to fund causes that are antisemitic or hostile to Israel?” she pressed, suggesting that legal remedies should be expanded to give all workers an opt-out mechanism.

Perhaps the sharpest indictment came when Stefanik asked Taubman whether he viewed the NEA and AFT as functioning more like political advocacy organizations than neutral labor representatives. Taubman did not hesitate.

“I’ve been at this for 43 years. When I started, I used to say unions were representatives who did politics on the side,” he recounted. “Now they are political powerhouse parties that do a little collective bargaining on the side. That’s what the NEA and AFT and unions like that are all about—it’s all about power and money, and the collective bargaining is secondary.”

The testimony reflected a growing sentiment among critics that unions have become deeply enmeshed in partisan politics, often taking positions that do not reflect the diversity of opinion among their own members. In this case, that meant aligning themselves with figures such as Mamdani, who openly espouses views that are clearly hostile to Israel and to Jewish communities.

The exchange in Tuesday’s hearing must be viewed against the backdrop of rising antisemitism nationwide. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has documented a steep spike in antisemitic incidents in the wake of the October 7 Hamas massacre in Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza. Jewish teachers report feeling isolated, silenced, and pressured within their professional associations, many of which have adopted pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel resolutions.

The fact that the AFT and NEA, representing millions of teachers, have increasingly aligned themselves with progressive political causes—including those that are overtly hostile to Israel—raises the stakes dramatically. For educators on the ground, the issue is not abstract. It goes to their sense of safety, belonging, and professional integrity.

The implications of Tuesday’s hearing extend well beyond the narrow world of labor law. At stake is the fundamental question of whether unions, as compulsory representatives of millions of workers, can impose ideological positions that marginalize minority groups within their membership.

The Supreme Court’s Janus decision was meant to safeguard workers’ rights not to fund political speech they disagree with. Yet, as Taubman noted, those protections do not extend to the private sector, leaving many educators trapped in unions whose positions they find offensive.

For Stefanik and her Republican colleagues, the case of Jewish teachers in New York illustrates the dangers of union politicization. It is not just a matter of financial compulsion but one of cultural coercion, where dissenting members risk being silenced or stigmatized.

Stefanik concluded her line of questioning by reiterating her commitment to protecting Jewish educators. “Unions should represent all their members fairly, not weaponize their power to support antisemitic or anti-Israel candidates,” she said.

Going forward, the issue is likely to spark further legislative interest. Lawmakers may explore whether federal labor law should be revised to extend Janus-like protections to private employees or whether unions should face stricter scrutiny over their political activities when those activities conflict with the civil rights of their members.

For Jewish teachers who rallied outside UFT headquarters last week, the hearing offered a measure of validation. Their concerns—long dismissed as internal disputes—have now been elevated to the national stage. The sight of union leaders marching alongside figures like Zohran Mamdani has not only galvanized grassroots protests but has also provoked scrutiny from the halls of Congress.

The subcommittee hearing underscored the widening gulf between America’s teachers’ unions and the educators they claim to represent. As Stefanik’s questions revealed, when unions take sides on polarizing issues such as the Israel-Palestinian conflict, they risk alienating their Jewish members and exposing themselves to charges of discrimination.

Experts such as Glenn Taubman and Kyle Koeppel Man framed the problem starkly: unions are no longer simply negotiating over wages and working conditions. They have become political players wielding vast sums of money and influence, often in ways that suppress dissent within their ranks.

In an era of rising antisemitism, the stakes could not be higher. For Jewish teachers, the battle is about more than collective bargaining; it is about safeguarding their dignity, their safety, and their constitutional rights. As the hearing made clear, the question now is whether Congress and the courts will step in to ensure that unions remain accountable to all of their members—or whether they will continue to act as ideological gatekeepers in America’s classrooms