9/11 Trial Set for June 2028 — Here's Why It Took So Long

A US military judge has set the trial of four accused 9/11 conspirators, including alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to begin on June 5, 2028 — nearly 27 years after the September 11, 2001 attacks Al Jazeera.

Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Michael Schrama issued the scheduling order on August 27, 2026, according to Al Jazeera. Schrama rejected a prosecution request to start the trial in early 2027, saying there was not enough time to resolve the large number of pretrial motions still pending before the military commission — the special court system used to try defendants for war crimes and terrorism-related offenses.

The four defendants are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, Mustafa al-Hawsawi, and Ali Abdul Aziz Ali. All four have been held at the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for years. Their proceedings have been repeatedly delayed by procedural disputes, challenges over classified evidence, and the complicated legal framework of the military commission system itself.

The path to this trial date has been far from straightforward. In 2024, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two co-defendants reached a plea agreement that would have spared them the death penalty in exchange for guilty pleas. Then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin revoked that deal within days. A US appeals court later backed Austin's decision, blocking the plea deals and restoring the possibility of capital trials — trials in which the death penalty is on the table. That ruling effectively closed the last alternative to a full trial and put the case back on a litigation track.

The scheduling order lays out a structured sequence. First, a jury of military service members will be selected. Opening statements will follow 30 days after jury selection. The defense will begin presenting its case 60 days after prosecutors finish theirs. The trial will then move to a sentencing phase, which would apply if any or all defendants are convicted of capital offenses.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured by US forces in Pakistan in March 2003. He then spent three years in secret CIA detention facilities — the so-called "black sites" — before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay in 2006. That detention history, especially the enhanced interrogation techniques used during CIA custody, has generated a large body of pretrial litigation over whether statements obtained under coercion can be admitted as evidence. These disputes are central to the evidentiary backlog that Schrama cited in declining to move the trial timeline up to 2027.

The broader context here helps explain why a case of this magnitude has taken more than two decades to reach trial. The intersection of classified intelligence methods, military commission rules, and the consequences of the CIA's rendition and interrogation program has produced a pretrial record of unusual complexity. Think of it as a trial built on a foundation of classified material: every motion involving secret evidence triggers security-clearance procedures and litigation over what the defense can access and what jurors are allowed to hear. The result is a proceeding that moves at a pace dictated less by the gravity of the charges than by the structural constraints of trying a capital case inside a system designed for a different era of conflict.

The June 2028 date also carries political weight. A trial opening that year would unfold under whatever administration occupies the White House after the 2028 election, placing the conduct and potential outcomes of the proceedings squarely within a new presidential term. The military commission system at Guantanamo has long been a subject of policy debate across administrations, and a trial of this visibility would inevitably draw scrutiny of both the process and any sentencing outcomes.

For the families of the nearly 3,000 people killed on September 11, 2001, the scheduling order is another waypoint in a wait that has now spanned a generation. Whether the June 2028 date holds or further motions and legal challenges push proceedings again is an open question, given the commission's history of delay.