OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Supreme Court Rejects 9/11 Plotters Bid to Revive Plea Deal

7 sources · updated 2026-10-19
Left 57% Center 29% Right 14%
4 left · 2 center · 1 right

What happened

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, in an unsigned order, declined to hear an appeal by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mustafa al-Hawsawi, and Walid bin Attash — three men charged before a military commission with crimes related to the September 11, 2001 attacks — who sought to revive 2024 pretrial agreements under which they would have pleaded guilty and received life sentences without the death penalty. Those agreements had been reached with military prosecutors and approved by the Pentagon’s convening authority for Guantánamo Bay; days later then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin withdrew them, saying responsibility for such a decision should rest with him. A military judge and a military appeals court treated the withdrawal as unlawful, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that Austin “indisputably” had authority to withdraw, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to take the case leaves that ruling and the withdrawal in place; Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who served as associate counsel to President George W. Bush after the attacks, recused himself. The three men, held at Guantánamo Bay since 2006 after CIA detention, remain scheduled for a June 2028 military trial in which the death penalty is still available, after years of delay in part over whether interrogation evidence can be used.
Sourcing check · Partly on the record · 7 articles

3 of 7 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 3 of 7
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: Supreme Court
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 6 of 7
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, court order
Credits another outlet 0 of 7
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 7
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 Oct 19, 13:33 UTC by NBC News, naming its source. First document in the first report, from NBC 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
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Right-leaning coverage presents the Supreme Court as simply backing the Pentagon, omitting that military courts had already found the withdrawal unlawful. The Washington Examiner says the court "sided with the Pentagon" on revoking the agreements. Left-leaning coverage at NBC News reports military courts said Austin had no such authority before the D.C. Circuit ruled for the government. Without that lower-court history, a reader cannot see that the justices were asked to referee a dispute over the defense secretary's power, not merely to bless a Pentagon choice. Right-leaning coverage leads with a Pentagon win that restores the death penalty after a "Biden-era" secretary withdrew the deals. Left-leaning coverage at NBC News opens on the defendants' failed appeal and notes the case stalled in part over evidence obtained via CIA torture. Can the government still seek death if core statements came from that interrogation?
Bottom line

The Washington Examiner skips from Austin's withdrawal to a Supreme Court win for the Pentagon. It never reports that military courts had already said he could not undo the plea.

The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Military courts said Austin had no authority to override the plea deal legal rulingin NBC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Austin said a decision on the death penalty in an attack as grave as September 11 should only be made by the defense secretary official statementin The Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Austin rejected the plea days after it was announced contextin NBC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • A trial date has been set for 2028 numberin NBC News, The Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage framed the order as the Court rejecting an attempt to hold the government to a plea it withdrew after prosecutors and the Pentagon’s senior Guantánamo official had already signed off, thereby removing “one barrier” to a capital trial. NBC News highlighted the defendants’ claim that the D.C. Circuit had no authority to intervene after military courts had said Austin lacked power to override the agreements, and tied the long delay in part to concerns about evidence obtained via CIA torture. The Guardian stressed that Austin “threw out the deal,” that defense lawyers argued he “acted too late,” and that victims’ relatives were split, some seeing a trial as “the best path to justice” and others as “the best hope for bringing the long, painful case to a conclusion.” Bloomberg described the agreements as ones that would have “shielded” the accused from the death penalty.
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage framed the outcome as the Supreme Court having “backed” and “sided with the Pentagon” in revoking a plea with “three alleged terrorists” that “would have taken the death penalty off the table.” The Washington Examiner described the men as challenging a “Biden-era” Defense Secretary’s withdrawal of agreements under which they would serve life in prison in exchange for removing the possibility of execution.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that a completed, approved plea should bind the government: military courts had already found the withdrawal unlawful, including because the defendants had begun to perform a term of the deals, and some victims’ families saw a concluded case as the best remaining path after decades of delay. The right’s strongest argument is that capital punishment for the 9/11 attacks is a decision of unique gravity that properly rests with the defense secretary — a view the D.C. Circuit endorsed when it said Austin “indisputably” had authority and it would “decline to second-guess his judgment,” which the Supreme Court left intact. The central unresolved tension is whether, in this military-commission system, a plea signed off below the secretary can still be cancelled by the secretary after the fact — a conflict between the finality of bargained sentences and civilian control over the death penalty.

7 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.