Boeing reaches deal with US DOJ to avoid prosecution over 737 Max crashes
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has struck a deal in principle with Boeing to allow it to avoid prosecution in a fraud case stemming from two fatal 737 MAX plane crashes that killed 346 people, a harsh blow to the families of the victims.
Boeing will pay more than $1.1bn, including the fine and compensation to families, and more than $455m to strengthen the company's compliance, safety, and quality programmes, the DOJ said on Friday.
The aircraft maker also agreed to pay an additional $444.5m into a crash victims' fund that would be divided evenly per crash victim on top of an additional $243.6m fine.
'Boeing must continue to improve the effectiveness of its anti-fraud compliance and ethics program and retain an independent compliance consultant,' the DOJ said on Friday. 'We are confident that this resolution is the most just outcome with practical benefits.'
The agreement allows Boeing to avoid being branded a convicted felon and is a blow to families who lost relatives in the crashes and had pressed prosecutors to take the US planemaker to trial. A lawyer for family members and two US senators had urged the DOJ not to abandon its prosecution, but the government quickly rejected the requests.
The DOJ expects to file the written agreement with Boeing by the end of next week. Boeing will no longer face oversight by an independent monitor under the agreement.
Boeing did not immediately comment.
Boeing had reached a tentative non-prosecution agreement with the government on May 16, as first reported by the news agency Reuters.
The agreement would forestall a June 23 trial date the planemaker faces on a charge it misled US regulators about a crucial flight control system on the 737 MAX, its best-selling jet.
Boeing in July had agreed to plead guilty to a criminal fraud conspiracy charge after the two fatal 737 MAX crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia spanning 2018 and 2019, pay a fine of up to $487.2m and face three years of independent oversight.
Boeing no longer will plead guilty, prosecutors told family members of crash victims during a meeting last week.
The company's posture changed after a judge rejected a previous plea agreement in December, prosecutors told the family members.
Judge Reed O'Connor in Texas said in 2023 that 'Boeing's crime may properly be considered the deadliest corporate crime in US history.'
Boeing has faced enhanced scrutiny from the Federal Aviation Administration since January 2024, when a new MAX 9 missing four key bolts suffered a mid-air emergency losing a door plug. The FAA has capped production at 38 planes per month.
DOJ officials last year found Boeing had violated a 2021 agreement, reached during the first Trump administration's final days, that had shielded the planemaker from prosecution for the crashes.
That conclusion followed the January 2024 in-flight emergency during an Alaska Airlines' flight. As a result, DOJ officials decided to reopen the 2018-19 fatal crashes case and negotiate a plea agreement with Boeing.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump-deployed National Guard arrives in LA to crush immigration protests
US National Guard soldiers have begun deploying on Los Angeles streets after United States President Donald Trump sent in 2,000 troops in a bid to suppress protests against a wave of federal immigration raids in the region, sparking a sharp rebuke from California's Democratic leadership. Troops were seen early Sunday at the federal complex in downtown Los Angeles, including around the Metropolitan Detention Center, which has been a flashpoint over the past two days. The deployment follows intense confrontations between demonstrators and federal agents near a Department of Homeland Security facility in Paramount, a city south of Los Angeles with a large Latino population. The clashes erupted after federal authorities carried out mass arrests in several locations, including the city's fashion district and a Home Depot store. More than 100 people have been detained over the past week, according to immigration officials. During Saturday's confrontation, agents fired tear gas, stun grenades, and pepper balls, while protesters responded with rocks and debris. Fires burned in the streets as tensions spiralled. 'This deployment of National Guard troops was done in a very unusual manner,' said Rob Reynolds, Al Jazeera's senior correspondent reporting from Los Angeles. 'Usually, the National Guard presence is requested by the governor of a state. In this case, Trump went around [California Governor Gavin] Newsom using a different provision of the law that allows him to nationalise the State National Guard and call it out in cases of insurrection against the United States government,' said Reynolds. Newsom, who has long been at odds with Trump, condemned the move as 'inflammatory' and warned it would only make the situation more combustible. 'They want a spectacle. Don't give them one,' Newsom posted on X. He accused the administration of using heavy-handed tactics to provoke unrest and distract from its controversial immigration agenda. Trump has denounced the protests as 'a form of rebellion'. 'There has long been a sense of antagonism between Trump and the state of California in general and also particularly against Newsom, who Trump refers to on social media by the somewhat juvenile nickname of Gavin New Scum. He was brandishing that nickname on social media earlier today,' Reynolds noted. The White House defended the decision, saying the Guard was being sent to 'address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester.' The last deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles was in 1992, during the rioting triggered by the brutal police beating by white officers of Black motorist Rodney King, which was caught on video. Robert Patillo, a civil and human rights attorney, called the president's move to bypass the governor and call in troops as 'unprecedented' in recent history. 'Normally, if federal troops are going to be used inside of states, it's going to be at the invitation of the governor of that state. For example, in 1992, the California governor invited federal troops in to put down the LA riots. But if the governor, such as Gavin Newsom, has not asked for federal troops to come in, and these troops are coming in against his will, then there will be challenges,' he said. In Compton, another site of protest, a vehicle was set alight, while in Paramount, hundreds of demonstrators rallied near a doughnut shop as police erected barriers of barbed wire. The protests extended into the night, with crowds also returning to federal buildings in central Los Angeles. Police later declared an unlawful assembly and began making arrests. In a further escalation, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that active-duty Marines based at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and could be mobilised if unrest continues. Progressive Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said the Trump order captured 'a president moving this country rapidly into authoritarianism' and 'usurping the powers of the United States Congress'. Several Republican leaders voiced their support for the involvement of the National Guard.
Al Jazeera
6 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Fact-checking claims Trump's pardons wiped out $1bn in debt owed to US
Liz Oyer, a lawyer with the United States Department of Justice handling pardons for a long time, was fired by the Trump administration in March. Since then, Oyer has publicly criticised the administration, including its approach to pardons. In an April 30 video on TikTok, Oyer took issue with many of Trump's pardons, not only because they short-circuited the justice system but also because of their financial impact. 'President Trump has granted pardons that have wiped out over $1bn in debts owed by wealthy Americans who have committed fraud and broken the law,' claims Oyer, who said she was fired because she opposed a pardon to restore gun rights to actor Mel Gibson, a Trump supporter who was convicted on misdemeanour domestic violence charges in 2011. US Senator Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, shared her post on May 31 on Instagram, saying Trump is 'selling pardons to criminals who dump money on him and ingratiate themselves to his ego. They not only get out of jail, but they get out of the money they owe to make restitution for their crimes. This is wrong.' Oyer's Substack includes a running list of Trump's pardons, along with a dollar figure for each that she says the pardon erased. The dollar figures on her list include fines – a financial penalty for being convicted of a crime – and restitution, which is designed to compensate victims for their losses. As of June 5, Oyer's pardon tracker listed 24 people with federal convictions whom Trump pardoned, along with the dollar amounts to be forgiven. On the surface, the maths holds: collectively, the 24 pardoned people and companies Oyer listed were on the hook for $1.34bn. 'A full pardon would wipe out any payments that were required as part of the criminal sentence', as long as they have not already been paid, said Brian Kalt, a Michigan State University law professor. But legal experts offered some caveats about this calculation. Some of the dollar amounts on Oyer's list were not finalised, which adds some speculation to her total. Oyer did not respond to inquiries for this article. After four and a half months in office, Trump has surpassed all but three post-World War II presidents for the number of clemency actions, which include pardons and commutations. His total is dominated by the roughly 1,500 pardons he granted to people who faced legal consequences from their participation in the events of January 6, 2021, when pro-Trump rioters stormed the US Capitol. The vast majority of clemency actions by Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden, were commutations, meaning they did not affect fines or restitution. (Biden commuted sentences for 37 people on death row and about 2,500 others convicted of nonviolent drug crimes.) Biden pardoned 80 people over four years; Trump has pardoned 58 people in four and a half months, excluding the January 6, 2021-related pardons. The four pardon recipients on Oyer's list with the highest debt would collectively exceed $1bn by themselves. They are: However, it is unclear whether these four would add up to $1bn plus in forgone payments to the federal government, because not every amount listed had been formally approved by a judge. 'Almost always, a pardon has come after sentencing, so we know the amount of the fine or restitution with certainty,' said Mark Osler, a University of St Thomas law professor. But at least in Milton's case, the pardon came before the restitution portion of his sentencing was completed. Milton is the most important pardon recipient for judging the accuracy of Oyer's statement, because it is the largest, accounting for about two-thirds of the $1bn figure. He was sentenced in December 2023, but legal skirmishing over his restitution package was delayed. In March 2025, federal prosecutors requested that the judge approve about $676m in restitution – $660.8m to shareholders in his company and $15m to one victim. That request was pending at the time of Milton's pardon. It is impossible to know whether the judge would have ultimately accepted that amount. Defendants can contest the prosecution's restitution request, and they often do, said Frank O Bowman III, a University of Missouri emeritus law professor. However, 'a judge will usually accept' what the government suggests, Osler said. For the second-, third- and fourth-ranking dollar amounts on Oyer's list, each was finalised in court. For these, though, it is unclear whether the pardon recipients had already begun to pay any of their restitution. If they had, that could reduce the dollar amounts on Oyer's list. (Our reporting did not turn up a central, publicly accessible repository showing who had paid what by the time of their pardon.) Restitution owed by January 6, 2021, pardon recipients, which is not included in Oyer's figure, could also push the total higher. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee said in a March 2025 letter that people receiving pardons related to January 6, 2021, owed nearly $3m in restitution before being pardoned. Other high-profile names on Oyer's list with smaller dollar amounts include: Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's former business partner, who was interviewed by congressional Republicans during an investigation of Joe Biden, Hunter's father; Carlos Watson, the founder of Ozy Media Inc, who was convicted on several fraud counts; reality TV stars Todd Chrisley and Julie Chrisley, who were also convicted on fraud counts; and former politicians Michael Grimm, John Rowland, Michelle Fiore and Alexander Sittenfeld. Oyer told The Washington Post that when deciding clemency, past presidents have hewed closer to the recommendations of her former Justice Department office, which has guidelines stating that potential pardon recipients should have already completed their sentence, including paying any restitution. 'It's unprecedented for a president to grant pardons that have the effect of wiping out so much debt owed by people who have committed frauds,' Oyer told the Post. 'They do not meet Justice Department standards for recommending a pardon.' Legal experts told PolitiFact that courts have not ruled on what happens to fines or restitution payments after a pardon if they had not already been paid. A 1995 Justice Department memo said that although payments already made and received would not be subject to being clawed back, the obligations not yet paid at the time of the pardon would be forgiven. 'This question, to our knowledge, has not been decided by any court, but we conclude, based upon existing precedent, that a pardon does reach such restitution where the victim has not yet received the restitution award, provided the pardon does not contain an express limitation to the contrary,' the memo said. Margaret Love, who held Oyer's former post at the Justice Department from 1990 to 1997, said, 'If money is paid to the government, you can't get the money back except through a congressional appropriation.' For restitution intended to compensate a person — such as the victim of a fraudulent scheme — it appears that the victims are out of luck once a pardon is issued if they have not received that money already, legal experts said. It is unclear whether the victims would be obliged to repay the restitution they had already received back to the pardoned convict who defrauded them. 'I don't know if it has ever come up,' Osler said. Oyer said, 'President Trump has granted pardons that have wiped out over $1bn in debts owed by wealthy Americans who have committed fraud and broken the law.' In 24 Trump pardons Oyer cited, the four biggest dollar amounts top $1bn. However, the single biggest – about $676m – relates to an amount sought by prosecutors that had not been formally approved by a judge before the pardon was issued, making the dollar figure speculative. It accounts for about two-thirds of the $1bn figure. The statement is accurate but requires additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.
Al Jazeera
8 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Democrats wooing Musk after the Trump breakup is US plutocracy at its best
It's official: United States President Donald Trump and the world's richest person, Elon Musk, have broken up. At the end of last month, Musk departed from his post as the head of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), where he oversaw the mass firing of federal employees and dismantling of various government agencies – all the while benefitting from his own companies' lucrative contracts with the government. Anyway, US 'democracy' has never met a conflict of interest it didn't like. Musk's service at the White House initially appeared to end on an amicable note as Trump praised him for the 'colossal change' he had achieved 'in the old ways of doing business in Washington'. The former head of DOGE in turn thanked the president for the opportunity. But soon after his departure, Musk publicly criticised the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act', a tax and spending bill that Trump is currently obsessed with passing, slamming it as a 'disgusting abomination'. There ensued predictably dramatic social media exchanges between the two right-wing billionaires with Trump pronouncing Musk 'so depressed and so heartbroken' after leaving the White House and offering the additional coherent analysis: ' It's sort of Trump derangement syndrome. We have it with others, too. They leave, and they wake up in the morning, and the glamour's gone. The whole world is different, and they become hostile.' Musk has repeatedly taken credit for Trump's 2024 election victory on account of the gobs of money he donated to the president's campaign and those of other Republican candidates. Now that the relationship is over, Trump has wasted no time in warning Musk that he'll face 'very serious consequences' if he chooses to fund Democratic campaigns in the future. But some Democratic ears, at least, have perked up at the possibility of getting the planet's richest person back on their side – which he abandoned in favour of Trump after having extended support to Democratic former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The political switcheroo was hardly extreme. At the end of the day, ideology matters little when you're just in the business of buying power. California Congressman Ro Khanna, for example, recently opined that Democrats should 'be in a dialogue' with Musk in light of their shared opposition to Trump's big beautiful bill. As per Khanna's view, 'we should ultimately be trying to convince [Musk] that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with.' He went on to list a few of these alleged values: 'A commitment to science funding, a commitment to clean technology, a commitment to seeing international students like him.' Never mind that Musk's main 'value' is a commitment to controlling as much of the earth – not to mention the whole solar system – as he possibly can for the benefit of himself and himself alone. Beyond his mass firing activities while head of DOGE, a brief review of Musk's entrepreneurial track record reveals a total lack of the 'values' that Democrats purport to espouse. Over recent years, reports have abounded of sexual harassment and acute racism at Musk's Tesla car factories. In October 2021, a federal jury in San Francisco ordered Tesla to pay $137m to a Black former employee who claimed he was told to 'go back to Africa' among other abuses suffered at his workplace. Along with violating federal labour laws, Musk as chief executive of Tesla threatened workers over the prospect of unionisation. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, he violated local regulations to keep his factories up and running, underscoring a general contempt for human life that, again, should not be a 'value' that anyone aspires to. To be sure, not all Democrats are on board with the proposal to woo Musk back into the Democratic camp – but he may be getting a growing cheering squad. In addition to Khanna's advocacy on his behalf, New York Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres seems prepared to give Musk his vote as well: 'I'm a believer in redemption, and he is telling the truth about the [big beautiful] legislation.' Anthony Scaramucci, Trump's former White House director of communications, has, meanwhile, suggested that Democrats could 'bring Elon Musk back into the fold as a prodigal son' by foregoing more left-wing policies – as if there's anything truly left-wing about the Democratic Party in the first place. Newsweek's write-up of Scaramucci's comments observed that 'It would be a coup for Democrats if they could court the influence of the world's richest man once more.' It would not, obviously, be a coup for democracy, which is supposed to be rule by the people and not by money. And yet a longstanding bipartisan commitment to plutocracy means the US has never been in danger of true democracy. Instead, billions upon billions of dollars are spent to sustain an electoral charade and ensure that capital remains concentrated in the hands of the few – while Americans continue to literally die of poverty. Now it remains to be seen whether the Trump-Musk breakup will drive Democrats into Musk's arms. But either way, the country's plutocratic values remain rock solid – and that is nothing less than a 'disgusting abomination'. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
