Trump’s Labor Department Under Fire for Pushing Secretive Union Spending Rules

By Mark Mix
Monday, 13 October 2025 01:14 PM EDT

The 2024 election revealed a growing disconnect between rank-and-file unionized workers and their leaders, who largely endorsed Kamala Harris despite widespread support for President Donald Trump among union voters. This rift has intensified as Trump appointees at the Department of Labor proposed restrictions on transparency, making it harder for workers to track how their dues are spent, particularly on political activities that often contradict their interests.

Following 1950s congressional investigations into union corruption, a law was enacted requiring annual financial disclosures through LM-2 filings. These documents allow workers to scrutinize union officials’ salaries, recipient lists of dues money, and expenditures categorized as “political activities and lobbying.” However, the Trump Labor Department’s recent proposal would exempt 868 unions with annual receipts between $250,000 and $450,000 from these requirements.

These unions collectively spent over $288 million in 2024 and controlled more than $465 million in assets. Notably, 571 of them operate in states without Right to Work laws, where private sector workers can be fired for refusing to contribute to union finances. The proposed rule raises concerns about hidden political spending, as LM-2 filings previously revealed unions funding organizations like ActBlue, Black Lives Matter, and the Democratic National Committee.

In 2024, union leaders funneled $54.5 million into Kamala Harris’s campaign while contributing just $211,000 to Trump—despite polls indicating many rank-and-file workers supported the President. Critics argue that the Labor Department should prioritize worker transparency rather than shielding union bosses from scrutiny.

Union officials defend the rule as reducing administrative burdens, but opponents highlight outdated claims about reporting timelines, noting modern accounting software now streamlines the process. Over 97% of public comments opposing the change criticized it as a betrayal of workers’ rights.

The proposal remains under review, with calls for the Department to abandon the plan or expand disclosure requirements to better inform union members. Mark Mix is president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the National Right to Work Committee.