The cited record supports the material proposition.
The US Justice Department said in January 2021 that two Boeing 737 MAX Flight Technical Pilots deceived the FAA Aircraft Evaluation Group about MCAS.
- About
- The Boeing Company
- Claim made by
- US Department of Justice, regulator statement
- Published
- 7 January 2021
- Evidence score
- 90 How it was scored
- Last reviewed
- 25 October 2026
Why this label
The department's release states the deception directlyS1. The deferred prosecution agreement filed in the Northern District of Texas contains Boeing's acceptance of responsibility and a statement of facts that describes misleading statements, half-truths and omissions to the FAA AEG about MCASS2. The later dismissal of the caseS9 ended the prosecution but did not withdraw the facts Boeing accepted in 2021. The dismissal order describes the government's position that Boeing committed crimes sufficient to justify prosecutionS9. No court made a trial finding of guilt. The claim is about what the department said and what Boeing accepted, and the record supports it.
Current procedural position
Facts accepted by Boeing in a deferred prosecution agreement filed on 7 January 2021S2. The criminal information was dismissed by the district court on 6 November 2025S9. The Fifth Circuit denied the families' mandamus petitions on 31 March 2026S6 and denied rehearing en banc on 22 May 2026S10.
Record supporting the assessment
deceived the FAA AEG about an important aircraft part
Based on Boeing's misleading statements, half-truths, and omissions to the FAA AEG about MCAS,
The Company admits, accepts, and acknowledges that it is responsible under United States law
the Government's position in this lawsuit has been that Boeing committed crimes sufficient to justify prosecution
Conflicting or limiting record
No record located that conflicts with this assessment.
Evidence score: 90 of 100
The score grades how well the record establishes this assessment. It is not a score of The Boeing Company. Score = source authority + directness + corroboration + procedural accuracy + currency + reproducibility.
| Component | Points | Max | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source authorityIs the source competent to establish the proposition? | 29 | 30 | A DOJ release and the filed agreement are competent records for what the department charged and Boeing accepted. |
| DirectnessDoes the source state the proposition or only discuss adjacent facts? | 19 | 20 | Both records state the deception of the FAA AEG about MCAS in plain terms. |
| CorroborationDo independent records support the same material point? | 12 | 15 | The 2025 dismissal order repeats the government's view that crimes were committed, but all records trace to the same case. |
| Procedural accuracyDoes the record settle the procedural state the claim describes? | 11 | 15 | Accepted facts in a DPA are strong, but no conviction followed and the case was dismissed. |
| CurrencyHas the record been checked against later developments? | 10 | 10 | Checked against the 2025 dismissal order, the 2026 Fifth Circuit rulings and the June 2026 mandate. |
| ReproducibilityCan a reader locate the passage and repeat the assessment? | 9 | 10 | Both documents are public on justice.gov. |
| Total | 90 | 100 |
Timeline
Related cases
- United States v. The Boeing CompanyUS District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Criminal. 4:21-CR-005-O.Stage: Dismissed on the government's motion on 6 November 2025. Crash families' mandamus petitions denied on 31 March 2026, rehearing en banc denied on 22 May 2026, mandate issued on 18 June 2026.
Revision history
- Assessment first published with label Supported.
Have a record that changes this assessment? See corrections and responses.
Sources
- S1Tier A Boeing Charged with 737 Max Fraud Conspiracy and Agrees to Pay over $2.5 BillionUS Department of Justice. Regulator press release. 7 January 2021.Supports the charge, the DPA and the payment amounts. It does not reflect later events.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
- S2Tier A Deferred Prosecution AgreementUS Department of Justice. Deferred prosecution agreement. 7 January 2021.Supports Boeing's acceptance of responsibility and the statement of facts on MCAS. It is not a conviction.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
- S9Tier A Order, United States v. The Boeing Company, No. 4:21-cr-5-OUS District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Court judgment. 6 November 2025.The order granting the government's motion to dismiss. It does not state dollar amounts or whether dismissal is with prejudice.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
- S6Tier A In re Naoise Connolly Ryan, et al., No. 25-11253 c/w No. 25-11254US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Court judgment. 31 March 2026.Per curiam panel opinion denying the families' mandamus petitions. The opinion was later amended on 22 May 2026.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
- S10Tier A On Petitions for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, In re Naoise Connolly Ryan, et al., No. 25-11253US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Court judgment. 22 May 2026.Order denying panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, with an amended opinion. It does not address any Supreme Court petition.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
Other claims about The Boeing Company
- Unresolved65Boeing said in May 2024 that it believed it had honored the terms of its 2021 deferred prosecution agreement, after the Justice Department told the court Boeing had breached it.Company statement, 14 May 20243 records citedFraud
- Outdated96An AP report in July 2024 said Boeing would plead guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and would have a felony conviction.Press report, 8 July 20244 records citedCorporate status
- Supported96Reuters reported in November 2025 that a federal judge approved the Justice Department's request to dismiss the 737 MAX criminal case against Boeing.Press report, 6 November 20254 records citedCorporate status