Teachers Union Endorses State Resistance to Federal Immigration Enforcement

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT), one of the nation’s largest teachers unions, has formally endorsed state and local efforts to resist federal immigration enforcement, according to a resolution adopted at its annual convention in July. The move aligns the union with Democratic governors and officials who have publicly opposed cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The decision highlights a growing divide between state and federal authorities over immigration policy, with the AFT’s support lending new institutional weight to efforts that challenge federal enforcement.

The AFT’s resolution, adopted on July 18, calls on elected officials to "use every tool in their toolbox" to restrict ICE activities, including banning ICE from sensitive locations, requiring judicial warrants for enforcement actions, and preventing local law enforcement from coordinating with ICE. The union also urges state intervention and financial assistance to shield public school districts from enrollment declines linked to immigration enforcement.

Union’s Resolution and Policy Demands

The resolution, titled "AFT Stands in Solidarity with Immigrant Families, Demands Action to Get ICE Out of Communities," expresses support for governors, attorneys general, mayors, and other state and local leaders who seek to "protect residents from ICE." The AFT specifically calls for policies that would ban ICE from conducting enforcement without a judicial warrant and provide resources and training for state employees to "properly defend against and respond to unlawful actions from ICE agents."

The union’s stance also includes a call to safeguard public school districts from the impact of immigration enforcement, suggesting state intervention and financial support to address potential enrollment declines. The resolution frames these measures as necessary to protect immigrant families and maintain safe, welcoming schools.

Democratic Officials’ Actions

Several Democratic governors and lawmakers have taken steps in line with the AFT’s position. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has threatened to deploy the state’s National Guard against federal agents, while Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota described federal immigration enforcement as an "occupying force." Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger has signed laws seeking to limit federal agents’ activities in the state. Governors JB Pritzker of Illinois, Gavin Newsom of California, and Tina Kotek of Oregon have all stated that immigration law should not be enforced in their jurisdictions.

Many states and cities have directed local law enforcement not to cooperate with ICE, echoing the doctrine of nullification—a theory historically used to justify state resistance to federal law. While today’s sanctuary policies differ from past nullification crises, they similarly aim to frustrate federal enforcement through state and local action.

Political and Financial Influence

The AFT’s political action arm has contributed millions to Democratic candidates and causes, according to public records reviewed by Defending Education. The union contributed $500,000 to Governor Spanberger’s campaign, and a report from Defending Education found that national teachers unions have given over $660 million to left-leaning organizations and political groups since 2015. The AFT’s leadership and convention speakers have included prominent Democratic figures, such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

Corey DeAngelis, a research fellow for education policy at the Heritage Foundation, criticized the union’s focus, stating, "The AFT isn’t a labor organization focused on classrooms. It’s an arm of the Democratic Party that uses teachers’ dues to advance partisan priorities, fund activist groups, and push policies that have nothing to do with improving education. This ICE resolution is just the latest example."

"The AFT isn’t a labor organization focused on classrooms. It’s an arm of the Democratic Party that uses teachers’ dues to advance partisan priorities, fund activist groups, and push policies that have nothing to do with improving education. This ICE resolution is just the latest example."

— Corey DeAngelis, Heritage Foundation research fellow

Lora Ries, director of the Heritage Foundation’s border security and immigration center, argued that restricting ICE from operating in "sensitive areas" would prevent the agency from fulfilling its mission. The AFT’s resolution, she said, supports efforts to "render ICE unable to do its job—and that is the point."

Response and Broader Context

The AFT’s leadership and supporters have framed the resolution as a defense of immigrant families and public education, but critics argue the union is prioritizing partisan politics over educational concerns. The union’s official statement, available on its website, emphasizes solidarity with immigrant communities and calls for action to "get ICE out of communities."

While the AFT’s resolution has drawn criticism from conservative groups, union officials and Democratic leaders have not directly addressed those critiques in public statements. The debate over the role of teachers unions in political advocacy and immigration policy is likely to continue as states and localities pursue divergent approaches to federal enforcement.