25 Years After 9/11 National Unity Has Shattered
Left 100%
Center 0%
Right 0%
2 left · 0 center · 0 right
What happened
The United States is marking the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which al-Qaeda hijackers killed nearly 3,000 people by crashing commercial airliners into New York’s World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Filmmaker Ami Horowitz interviewed pedestrians in Manhattan’s East Village for a Daily Wire collaboration and reported that two-thirds of those he spoke with agreed Americans “deserved” the attacks; some advanced conspiracy theories implicating George W. Bush, Israel, or the United States, one declined to call the events terrorism and agreed the perpetrators could be considered “freedom fighters,” and others said they would not lose sleep over another attack. New York’s Friday Ground Zero ceremony will, by tradition, read victims’ names and include no speeches; President Donald Trump will not attend after The New York Times reported organizers would not let him speak, a request the White House denied he had made, while former presidents from both parties are scheduled to attend, as is Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the city’s 34-year-old democratic socialist Muslim mayor. Days before the commemoration, the Trump administration announced a New York deportation operation dubbed “Operation Rotten Apple.” Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, who has said he “unequivocally condemns” the attacks, faced scrutiny for remaining associated with streamer Hasan Piker after Piker said “America deserved 9/11” and later walked the remark back.
Sourcing check · Rests on documents, no one quoted · 4 articles
No article quotes anyone; the reporting rests on video interviews. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 0 of 1
- 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: No article does.
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 1
- 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: video interviews
- Credits another outlet 0 of 1
- 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 1
- 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 9, 15:43 UTC by Daily Wire, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Daily Wire (video interviews).
- Not counted 3
- 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 of the 25th anniversary never reports New Yorkers who said the United States deserved the attacks. Friday is framed in the Atlantic as vanished unity, a rebuilt downtown, and a president who will skip Ground Zero. Right-leaning coverage never reports the name-reading, the Tribute in Light, or who will stand there. East Village interviews in which two-thirds of those asked agreed America deserved 9/11 lead the Daily Wire's account, a selected sample, not a citywide poll.
Right-leaning coverage quotes a man calling the hijackers "freedom fighters." Left-leaning coverage describes only terror and mourning from that morning and never records anyone who rejects that language.
What share of New Yorkers, asked at random, say the country deserved 9/11?
Bottom line
Read the Atlantic's anniversary essay and you never hear New Yorkers saying America deserved 9/11. Read the Daily Wire and you never hear that Ground Zero will read the names on Friday.
The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Two-thirds of people Ami Horowitz interviewed in the East Village agreed that America deserved 9/11
- An East Village interviewee said another 9/11 would not cause them to lose sleep at all
- Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed declined to sever ties with a streamer who said America deserved 9/11
- Former presidents from both parties are slated to attend the Friday morning Ground Zero ceremony
- The year's 9/11 remembrance services will include Mayor Zohran Mamdani
- The White House denied that Trump had asked to speak at Ground Zero
The Left View
Left-leaning sources treat the anniversary as a story of unity lost, not of New Yorkers assigning blame to the victims. The Atlantic describes how rescue workers “from red and blue states raced to help,” NATO invoked Article 5 for the first and only time, and Congress passed a bipartisan victims-compensation fund, then argues that the Iraq War, the 2008 financial panic, racial backlash, and Trump’s widening of “political and cultural fissures” left the nation with “angrier elections and escalating political violence.” It says New York has “bounced back—revitalized and thriving,” and that Trump “has never seemed all that moved by his hometown’s darkest day,” citing his hours-after-the-attacks claim that a building he owned had “suddenly gained in stature,” his “anti-Muslim rhetoric,” a once-proposed travel ban “for anyone of that faith,” his skip of the names-only memorial, and the deportation surge. Guardian readers recalled flags on every house and “a look that wasn’t there before” among strangers, then described the Patriot Act, airport searches that “never went away,” Islamophobia, and “two forever wars that were wholly ineffective at making us safer”; Dan J. wrote that the country allowed 9/11 to unite it “not in grieving or resilience, but in group hatred,” and Ashley, who turned five that day, said “I feel it completely unraveled the US.”
The Right View
Right-leaning sources frame the anniversary around the East Village interviews as proof of “a disturbing divide.” They emphasize Horowitz’s finding that “two-thirds agreed that we deserved 9/11,” plus quotes in which interviewees denied the word terrorism, accepted “freedom fighters,” said “Yeah, we deserve it” given “the amount of atrocities the U.S. has committed,” would not lose sleep over another attack, or said “If that’s what needs to happen for things to change, then yeah,” including a call to “cut their head off” in the manner of the French Revolution. The Daily Wire connects that sentiment to El-Sayed having “repeatedly declined to sever ties with Piker” and to his appearance with Cenk Uygur and cleric Zaid Shakir, who have “publicly questioned aspects of the official account of 9/11.” It concludes that for most Americans September 11 remains “one of the clearest examples of national tragedy and shared memory,” but that the interviews show “many people view the attacks through a radically different lens”—“a far more disturbing anniversary message than any conspiracy theory.”
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that the post-2001 aftermath—the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the Patriot Act, and a politics the Atlantic says Trump widened into “us versus them”—explains why the anniversary now evokes surveillance, Islamophobia, and broken unity rather than a quarrel over who was responsible, a case reinforced by Trump skipping a no-speech memorial other former presidents will attend and by the pre-anniversary “Operation Rotten Apple” announcement. The right’s strongest argument is the on-camera statements themselves: interviewees saying Americans “deserved” the attacks, treating the hijackers as “freedom fighters,” and greeting another mass-casualty strike with indifference, which, even as unscientific street interviews in one neighborhood, go beyond ordinary criticism of U.S. foreign policy. The central unresolved tension is whether those answers are a small, prompted East Village sample being generalized into an indictment of “New York leftists,” or a real moral break over 9/11 that accounts of lost unity and civil-liberties costs do not address.
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.