New York Post op-ed accuses Randi Weingarten of projecting fascism onto Trump

A New York Post opinion piece contends that American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten has begun projecting fascism onto former President Donald Trump. The column centers on her new book Why Fascists Fear Teachers and a national tour meant to promote it, arguing that Weingarten frames the Trump administration as a democracy threat while presenting teachers’ unions as essential guardians of democratic norms. The piece treats the book and the tour as part of a political strategy rather than a neutral analysis of education policy.

The author notes that Weingarten has publicly asserted that a public with strong critical thinking muscles helps strengthen democracy and resist authoritarianism. The column says the tour uses that premise to cast unions as bulwarks against tyranny, portraying the AFT and other labor groups as central to building those cognitive skills and defending democratic institutions. The piece characterizes the book and its public appearances as part of a broader effort to maintain union influence amid shifting political currents.

The op-ed recasts the COVID-19 era as a test of union leverage, asserting that the pandemic allowed teacher unions to extend influence and resist openings. It alleges Weingarten fought to keep schools closed for extended periods and that allies in the Biden administration supported remote learning as a public health precaution. The column links those policies to reported learning losses and rising chronic absenteeism, though it attributes causation to union pressure alongside broader health concerns rather than solely to instructional choices.

According to the piece, as data about the harms of remote learning mounted, Weingarten allegedly pivoted to presenting herself as someone who had tried to reopen schools. The author argues that her political standing now hinges on portraying herself as a champion for students while casting criticisms of strong critical thinking as political opposition to this goal. The column frames this as a strategic reversal aimed at preserving influence in the education policy arena.

A central claim is that the Trump administration’s push for school choice and a shift to market-style policies would undermine union power by distributing control over schools beyond traditional district governance. The op-ed argues that Weingarten despises what it sees as an attack on the union’s role in public schooling, not because of concerns about fascism but because of the potential to dilute or diminish union clout through policy changes that favor alternatives to traditional public schools. The column suggests that unions have moved toward the hard left as their best path to sustain power, regardless of broader consequences for public education and governance.

The author contends that the toughness of the anti-fascist rhetoric associated with some education debates has been a tool for rallying political support, and it notes that the piece frames such rhetoric as instrumental rather than inherently principled. It asserts that even controversial episodes in the public discourse, including attacks linked to prominent conservative figures, have not tempered Weingarten’s public campaign against what the column portrays as attempts to depoliticize the education system or reorder its governance around student outcomes and parental choice.

Editors at the New York Post describe the op-ed as part of the publication's opinion section, reflecting a longstanding divide over how to balance labor, education policy, and political power in American schools. The column portrays a labor movement that it says relies on education policy to maintain influence, sometimes at the expense of focusing squarely on students’ needs while aligning with broader political movements that frame public education as a battleground for power.

Taken together, the piece highlights a broader national debate about the role of teacher unions in shaping reopening policies, school governance, and the direction of public education. It presents a provocative framing of Weingarten as a political actor who leverages education policy to advance a particular ideological agenda, a framing that will likely fuel continued discussion about the proper balance between unions, public health, parental rights, and the mission of schools in a polarized political environment.