Power first, children last: The true legacy of Randi Weingarten’s teachers union

By Natalya Murakhver | Commentary, Townhall

When America looks back at the COVID era, history will not be kind to Randi Weingarten and the American Federation of Teachers. At a time when our nation’s children needed leadership, compassion, and courage, Weingarten delivered none of it. Instead, she manipulated the crisis of school closures to expand her own political influence, sacrificing the futures of millions of kids and betraying the trust of parents across this country.

Let’s be clear: school closures were not primarily about health or science. They were about power. From the very beginning, teachers’ unions lobbied aggressively to keep schools closed far longer than necessary. They pressured public health officials and the CDC to rewrite guidelines in ways that served union interests, not children’s needs. The so-called “science” they claimed to follow was selectively applied, conveniently shifting whenever it bolstered their demands for more concessions, more money, and less accountability.

Randi Weingarten positioned herself as the self-appointed defender of teachers while conveniently ignoring her responsibility to students and teachers. In reality, she became the face of one of the most destructive power grabs in modern American history. Under her watch,

teachers’ unions treated parents like adversaries and students like bargaining chips. Every day classrooms stayed closed, children fell further behind. Every time union leaders blocked reopening efforts, they chipped away at the social, emotional, and academic development of an entire generation.

The numbers don’t lie. By the time classrooms finally reopened, studies showed catastrophic learning loss, particularly in math and reading. Kids who had already been struggling fell off the map completely. Dropout rates spiked. Mental health crises surged. A record number of children needed counseling, therapy, and interventions just to get back to baseline. These aren’t abstract statistics; they represent real lives permanently altered. And yet, while children suffered, unions won. They secured billions in federal funds, loosened accountability measures, and even leveraged the crisis to push for unrelated political priorities.

Weingarten and her allies framed themselves as martyrs, pretending teachers were being asked to risk their lives. But the truth is, while grocery store clerks, truck drivers, nurses, and police officers all showed up to work every single day, many teachers remained at home, logging onto Zoom, while lobbying to keep classrooms shut. Parents who raised concerns were smeared as extremists, racists, or anti-science. Domestic terrorists? Mothers and fathers begging for schools to reopen were gaslit and told they were overreacting. The arrogance and lawfare were astounding.

Even now, Weingarten tries to rewrite history. She claims she always wanted schools open, but “safely.” This is revisionist nonsense. At every turn, she fought reopening. At every turn, she demanded more restrictions, more delays, and more concessions. If it weren’t for the tireless efforts of parents who refused to be silenced, many districts would have stayed closed indefinitely. Her “concern” for safety was always a smokescreen for political power.

Consider the hypocrisy: private schools across America opened their doors long before public schools did. Catholic schools, charter schools, and independent institutions showed that safe in-person learning was possible. Why didn’t Weingarten fight for that? Because those schools weren’t controlled by her union. When education is freed from union dominance, kids come first. That was the real threat. Reopening would have proven that teachers’ unions were unnecessary middlemen, more concerned with their own relevance than with children’s education or teachers’ well being.

Natalya Murakhver is the Founder of Restore Childhood and Director of “15 DAYS”.

READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT TOWNHALL

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.