OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

CIA Declassifies 9/11 Intelligence Briefings

15 sources · updated 2026-09-13
Left 36% Center 29% Right 36%
5 left · 4 center · 5 right

What happened

On September 11, 2026, the 25th anniversary of al-Qaeda hijackings that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, at the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania, the CIA released 71 President’s Daily Briefs covering February 1998 through September 12, 2001. CIA Director John Ratcliffe called the more-than-100-page disclosure “the single largest release of CIA analysis related to 9/11 ever,” drawn from intelligence prepared for Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The files include a September 10, 1998 briefing stating that Osama bin Laden’s network “may fly an explosive-packed airplane into a US city,” a December 1998 item on hijack training and a New York airport security trial run, and the previously public August 6, 2001 briefing titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.” Of the 71 products, 69 had never been released; many remain heavily redacted, and none identified the timing, targets, or coordinated use of multiple commercial airliners on September 11, 2001.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 14 articles

10 of 13 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 10 of 13
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: CIA, John Ratcliffe, Terry Strada and 9/11 Commission
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 9 of 13
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: declassified documents, official report, official documents, declassified intelligence memos
Credits another outlet 0 of 13
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 13
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, 17:14 UTC by NewsNation, naming its source. First document 1 hour later, from Breitbart (declassified documents).
Not counted 1
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
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage omits the purpose the hijack warnings assigned to the plot, so those warnings read as a forecast of the attacks themselves. Fox News reports the plotters aimed to "demand the release of imprisoned extremists." NBC News lists hijack training and hostage-taking as separate threats and never states that the December brief described a prisoner-exchange hijacking. That purpose is the difference between being warned about September 11 and being warned about a hostage taking. Right-leaning coverage and left-leaning coverage also split on the words they use for the same briefs. Fox News said the network was "planning to hijack large commercial jets in an effort to attack the United States." NBC News described "alarming but imprecise intelligence reports." What, if anything, did Clinton or Bush order the CIA or FBI to do after the hijack and explosive-plane items reached their desks?
Bottom line

A reader of NBC News would come away thinking the CIA forecast hijack attacks on U.S. cities. The December brief that Fox News cites was a plan to trade a captured plane for prisoners.

The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • The December 1998 presidential brief described a hijacking meant to free imprisoned extremists, including the Blind Sheikh. official statementin Fox News, Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • A July 24, 2001 brief told Bush an expected imminent bin Laden operation had been postponed while other attacks might still proceed. official statementin Breitbart, Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • An August 2001 brief said bin Laden operations were expert and flexible and reached Bush in the final weeks before the attacks. official statementin Breitbart, Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Many of the released briefs remain heavily redacted. contextin NBC News, BBC, The Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • A walk-in source was the basis for the 1998 warning that a group might fly an explosive-packed airplane into an American city. contextin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets treated the release as confirmation of a record already mapped by Congress and the 2004 9/11 Commission, not as a cache of surprises. NBC News reported that the documents “included no major new revelations” and that the warnings “lacked definitive information about precisely how or when the attacks might take place,” while the Guardian said they “didn’t appear to break any new ground on the planning of the attacks.” BBC and NBC stressed that briefings went to Clinton and Bush alike and that the “alarming but imprecise” stream matches the Commission’s finding that agencies warned of a potential attack but had “few details or sense of the scale,” alongside poor FBI–CIA information-sharing and a “failure of imagination.” They also noted the 1998 airplane item’s own caveat that intelligence “provides no conclusive information on bin Ladin’s intentions for future attacks,” and that redactions still hide sources.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets framed the files as proof that Washington, in the Daily Wire’s words, “heard the warning and missed the war,” and as a transparency move by the Trump administration. The Daily Caller said the United States received “more detailed warnings… than previously known — warnings that began under the Clinton administration roughly three years before.” Fox News and OAN highlighted Clinton-era language about an explosive-packed plane, hijack training, and operatives who “had evaded security checks during a recent trial run at an unidentified New York airport,” then Bush’s August 2001 “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US” item and related summer-2001 alerts. The Daily Wire argued the failure was analytic, not a lack of collection: officials kept treating al-Qaeda as a conventional bombing-and-hostage threat even after “the possibility that the airplane itself could be the weapon had already entered presidential intelligence,” a gap it tied to the Commission’s finding that the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center did not analyze how a hijacked or explosives-laden aircraft might be used as a weapon.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is continuity with the existing official record: the PDBs’ caveats, redactions, and missing operational specifics match the 9/11 Commission’s 2004 conclusions, and claims of “no major new revelations” are supported by two of the 71 items already being public and by prior inquiries that had already described the threat stream. The right’s strongest argument is newly visible texture: a September 1998 PDB that reached the president with the “explosive-packed airplane” scenario, plus December 1998 hijack-training and airport-trial reporting, lets the public see how early some fragments were—supporting the Daily Wire’s claim that the United States “did not fail to notice al-Qaeda” so much as fail to recast what those pieces meant. The unresolved tension is whether this release mainly restates a shared, well-mapped institutional failure or whether the now-public duration and specificity of the warnings make “failure of imagination” look less like missing information and more like unused information.

15 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.