9/11 Mastermind Trial Delayed Nearly 27 Years
Left 0%
Center 0%
Right 100%
0 left · 0 center · 2 right
What happened
A military judge at Guantánamo Bay has scheduled jury selection for June 5, 2028, in the capital trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and three co-defendants charged with planning the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The same judge recently excluded statements Mohammed made to FBI agents in 2007, ruling they were not shown to be voluntary after his CIA detention, which included waterboarding following his 2003 capture in Pakistan; prosecutors did not appeal. Mohammed was transferred to Guantánamo in 2006 and arraigned in 2012; the current judge is the fifth assigned to the case. A fifth defendant, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, was found mentally unfit to stand trial. A 2024 plea deal that would have produced guilty pleas in exchange for life sentences was later withdrawn.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 4 articles
2 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 2 of 4
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: John Ryan and Gordon Felt
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 4
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: court ruling
- Credits another outlet 0 of 4
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 4
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 11, 10:00 UTC by CBS News, naming its source. First document 11 hours later, from Fox News (court ruling).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
BLINDSPOT.
Only right-leaning outlets are covering this story
— the other side's media is silent.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning coverage reports that a military judge has set the 9/11 trial to begin in 2028. The same outlets report that he excluded Mohammed's FBI statements as tainted by CIA torture. Fox News and the Washington Examiner both carry the delay and the ruling, then diverge on what to put first. Family grief leads at Fox News, which quotes relatives calling the wait an "open sore." The Examiner instead leads with interrogation's legal shadow. The Examiner skips the withdrawn plea deals and the judge turnover that Fox News recounts. Fox News spends little time on what evidence survives once those statements are out. Left-leaning coverage is not covering the story at all. A reader of that side is missing the new start date, the thrown-out confession, and that victim families say they may never see a verdict.
How will prosecutors try a capital 9/11 case without those FBI statements?
Bottom line
Fox News is reporting a 2028 9/11 trial date after the alleged mastermind's FBI statements were thrown out, a delay left-leaning outlets have not reported.
The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
- A military judge scheduled Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and three co-defendants for trial on June 5, 2028
- The judge barred prosecutors from using Mohammed's 2007 FBI statements, finding they were not voluntary after CIA torture
- The government chose not to appeal the exclusion, saying an appeal could jeopardize the trial date
- Then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin withdrew 2024 plea agreements that would have produced life sentences instead of the death penalty
- The current judge is the fifth to oversee the case since the defendants were arraigned in 2012
The Right View
Fox News and the Washington Examiner report the 2028 trial date and the exclusion of Mohammed’s 2007 FBI statements as further delay in a case already 25 years past the attacks, emphasizing victims’ families who describe an unhealed wound, an “American embarrassment,” and a process that has not produced a verdict despite years of detention. Those outlets recount CIA black-site interrogation, the failed 2024 plea agreement, repeated judge changes, and the abandoned 2009 plan to try the case in federal court in Manhattan. Center outlets covering the same docket (including CBS News) match those core facts and add institutional detail: military-commission logistics at Guantánamo, roughly 90 remaining pretrial rulings, a former prosecutor’s view that other evidence can still support conviction without the excluded statements, and family leaders saying they will believe the 2028 date when it happens.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: it rests on a named military judge, a scheduled trial date, a specific evidentiary ruling, named defendants, and a public case history (capture, CIA detention, 2006 transfer, 2012 arraignment, collapsed 2024 pleas). Established: the June 5, 2028, start date is set but not guaranteed; Mohammed’s 2007 FBI statements were excluded as involuntary after CIA coercion, and the government did not appeal; the men have been held for years without a verdict. Alleged: their criminal roles in the 9/11 plot remain charges to be proved at trial, not findings. No left-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch whether pretrial rulings and discovery close in time to keep the 2028 date, whether prosecutors proceed on non-confession evidence, and any further court orders or official notices on the commission calendar.
4 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.