DOJ Opens Grand Jury Investigation Into UAW President Shawn Fain, Documents Show

DOJ Grand Jury Now Involved

Since the federal monitor overseeing the United Auto Workers found last month that President Shawn Fain retaliated against a fellow union official and misused his authority, the case has escalated. Internal union documents reviewed by Reuters show the Justice Department has opened a grand jury investigation into the same conduct, including allegations that Fain took actions to benefit his fiancée.

The monitor's lead counsel informed Fain and Rich Boyer, the senior union official who says he was retaliated against, last month that the DOJ had launched the grand jury probe. Boyer is one of several candidates running against Fain in the UAW's presidential election scheduled for later this year.

What the Monitor Is and Isn't Saying

The monitor's office, run by New York attorney Neil Barofsky, was installed to oversee the union following a bribery and embezzlement scandal that sent multiple past UAW officials to prison. Barofsky's team issued a report last month concluding Fain had retaliated against Boyer and improperly used his authority in ways that would benefit his fiancée, but it deferred any decision on discipline pending further review.

In a June 18 email reviewed by Reuters, the monitor's lead counsel explained why more detail wasn't coming. "We are not publishing the details of our factual findings on this issue at this time out of deference to a Grand Jury investigation DOJ has initiated into that issue," the counsel wrote, adding, "We do not intend to publicly disclose the existence of that investigation at this time."

A federal watchdog charged with transparency over a union with a documented corruption history is now withholding findings specifically because prosecutors are involved. That's standard practice to avoid tainting a grand jury, but it also means UAW members won't see the full picture before they vote in this year's election.

Fain's Defense

Fain has denied the monitor's findings outright, calling the allegations "bogus." In a statement responding to the DOJ investigation, he said Boyer fed the monitor false allegations and that Barofsky himself holds "a political grudge against me because the UAW took an anti-war stance about what was happening in Gaza."

Fain is pointing to a real, documented conflict. In 2024, the union's executive board called for a Gaza ceasefire, and Fain has said that decision produced a "heated and highly personal disagreement" with Barofsky. Whether that dispute has anything to do with a grand jury investigation into alleged personal financial benefit is a separate question the monitor's reports don't address, but Fain is entitled to make that argument publicly, and he has retained a law firm to challenge the monitor's process, according to his statement.

A reasonable read of Fain's position: if a watchdog appointed to police the union has a personal history of friction with the union president over an unrelated political dispute, that's worth scrutinizing before treating the watchdog's findings as gospel. Monitors are supposed to be neutral referees, not parties with their own grievances. That said, nothing in the documents reviewed by Reuters shows Barofsky's Gaza disagreement with Fain has any connection to the specific allegations about Fain's fiancée or the retaliation claims from Boyer.

Where This Stands

The UAW itself declined to comment on the DOJ probe. A lawyer for the union told Reuters the union is not the subject of a grand jury investigation, drawing a distinction between the organization and Fain personally. Boyer and his attorney did not respond to requests for comment.

No charges have been filed against Fain. No indictment exists. This is a grand jury investigation, meaning prosecutors are gathering evidence and testimony, not a criminal case that has been proven in court. Fain remains the sitting UAW president and is actively campaigning for a second four-year term.

What happens next depends on two tracks moving in parallel: the monitor's office, which has already found wrongdoing but hasn't decided on discipline, and the Justice Department, which is now investigating the same underlying conduct with subpoena power the monitor doesn't have. Both are operating under a gag of sorts, with the monitor explicitly declining to detail its findings while the grand jury runs. UAW members will vote on Fain's leadership later this year without knowing what either investigation ultimately concludes.