A watchdog organization has released a report alleging that the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division (BMWED-IBT), one of the nation's largest rail unions representing 37,000 members, funneled money to support Democratic causes and progressive organizations while its membership base largely supports President Trump and the MAGA agenda.
The American Accountability Foundation (AAF) released the report this week, claiming that union leadership has aligned itself with left-leaning political priorities at odds with many of its own dues-paying members. The report examines both the union's political spending and its broader financial practices from 2017 to 2024.
What the Right Is Saying
"The leadership's progressive alignment is a stunning betrayal of the large proportion of its working-class members who support the MAGA agenda and President Trump's leadership," the AAF report stated. The watchdog organization argued that BMWED-IBT has abandoned "the will" of its membership base, which polling suggests heavily favors Republican candidates.
The report cited union attacks on Trump during his first term, including claims he was "undoing Obama's legacy" and that his deregulation efforts were "dangerous." It also pointed to the union's support for causes including Black Lives Matter, abortion access, and universal health care as evidence of political alignment with Democratic priorities.
AAF President said in a statement accompanying the report: "While hardworking rank-and-file members of the Brotherhood of Maintenance and Way Employees Division Union are busting their backs making an average of $60K per year, woke union bosses live like kings and have wasted millions in union dues on progressive activism, hotel stays, and casino trips."
Conservative critics argue that union leadership political spending constitutes a form of compelled speech that forces members to support causes they may oppose. They point to the D.R.I.V.E. PAC donation figures as evidence of systematic prioritization of Democratic candidates over Republican alternatives.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive advocates and labor supporters argue that unions have the right—and often the obligation—to support policies that benefit workers, regardless of which party champions those positions. They note that collective bargaining, workplace safety regulations, and healthcare protections have historically been Democratic priorities, making political engagement a logical extension of union advocacy for members.
Labor rights organizations contend that watchdog reports targeting union political spending rarely apply similar scrutiny to corporate PACs or business-aligned organizations. They argue that union members voluntarily join knowing their dues support broader advocacy work, and that leadership political positions reflect decades of policy stances on issues like worker safety, retirement security, and healthcare access.
Some progressive commentators have defended BMWED-IBT's historical positions as consistent with mainstream labor movement priorities, noting that unions representing industrial workers have long advocated for regulations on railroads, workplace protections, and public investment in infrastructure—positions they characterize as pro-worker rather than partisan.
What the Numbers Show
The AAF report documented specific financial allocations it characterized as politically motivated: $441,098 to left-leaning organizations including the Center for American Progress; more than $100,000 to the National Democratic Club across multiple years; and contributions to the National Teamsters Hispanic Caucus. The report noted that both the National Democratic Club and the National Teamsters Hispanic Caucus have taken stances opposing Trump administration immigration policies.
According to the report's analysis of D.R.I.V.E. PAC records, political donations heavily favored Democrats: approximately $13.76 million to Democratic Party committees compared with roughly $729,846 to Republican committees. BMWED-IBT joined this PAC after its separate political action committee merged into it in 2004.
The union maintained relationships with Democratic lawmakers including Reps. Jesús "Chuy" García, D-Ill., and Dina Titus, D-Nev., according to the report.
On compensation, the AAF reported that General President Cardwell earned $233,492 in 2024 and Secretary-Treasurer Dale Bogart earned $206,709. The average BMWED-IBT member earned $61,692 annually that year. The report claimed roughly two-thirds of headquarters employees earned six-figure salaries in 2024, while members of Local Lodge 1020 pay nearly $100 per month in dues.
Total spending from 2017 to 2024 allegedly reached more than $18 million, including: $7.25 million on hotels and conferences; $5.44 million on legal fees; $2.71 million on promotional items and merchandise; $2.11 million on travel; and $2.33 million at casinos and resorts, with a single $522,281 payment to Caesars Entertainment in 2023.
Polling data cited in the report shows Teamsters support breaking roughly 60% for Trump and 40% for his opponent. Exit polling from the 2024 election indicated working-class voters without college degrees went 56% for Trump and 42% for Harris.
The Bottom Line
This report highlights an ongoing tension between union leadership political positions and rank-and-file member preferences, a dynamic that has drawn increased scrutiny as unions navigate polarized political environments. The AAF findings are based on the organization's review of publicly available financial records and do not constitute formal legal allegations at this stage.
BMWED-IBT had not issued a formal response to media inquiries as of publication. Union members who spoke with Fox News expressed frustration that their dues support political causes misaligned with their personal views, while union defenders argue such spending represents legitimate advocacy for worker protections.
The report comes as labor unions nationally face heightened scrutiny over political spending practices. Future developments to watch include whether BMWED-IBT responds publicly to the specific financial allegations and whether members pursue governance changes through existing union democratic processes.