Politics · October 19, 2026
Supreme court rejects effort to revive plea deal for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 9/11 attacks

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to revive a plea agreement for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two co-defendants that would have removed the death penalty in exchange for guilty pleas and life sentences. The 2024 deal was originally approved by a military commission official but was revoked days later by then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who argued that such a critical decision should rest with him. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had previously upheld Austin's authority to rescind the agreement. With the Supreme Court declining to hear the appeal, the case returns to military court where a trial is currently scheduled for 2028. The proceedings have faced decades of delays related to the admissibility of evidence obtained through CIA 'enhanced interrogation' techniques.
Read the original coverage
Supreme Court Will Not Revive Plea Deal for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and 9/11 Defendants
Read at The New York Times ↗- NBC NewsCenter-left
Supreme Court rejects alleged 9/11 mastermind’s attempt to revive plea deal
Read at NBC News ↗ - ABC NewsCenter-left
Supreme Court rejects effort to revive Khalid Sheikh Mohammed plea deal
Read at ABC News ↗ - CBS NewsCenter-left
Supreme Court turns away appeal from alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Read at CBS News ↗ - New York PostRight
Supreme Court rejects bid by 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to revive controversial plea deal
Read at New York Post ↗ Supreme Court Rejects Sept. 11 Defendants on Scuttled Plea Deals
Read at Bloomberg Politics ↗- The GuardianCenter-left
Supreme court rejects effort to revive plea deal for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 9/11 attacks
Read at The Guardian ↗ - AxiosCenter-left
Supreme Court won't revive accused 9/11 mastermind's plea deal
Read at Axios ↗ - Washington TimesCenter-right
Supreme Court rejects effort to revive Khalid Sheikh Mohammed plea deal
Read at Washington Times ↗ - Just the NewsRight
Supreme Court upholds Pentagon decision to toss plea deal for alleged 9/11 conspirators
Read at Just the News ↗
Reported across the spectrum
- The Supreme Court rejected an appeal to restore a 2024 plea deal for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two other defendants.
- The plea deal would have spared the defendants the death penalty in exchange for life imprisonment without parole.
- Former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin revoked the agreements shortly after they were approved.
- The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Austin acted within his legal authority to cancel the deals.
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh recused himself from the case.
- A trial for the defendants is currently set for June 2028.
- The legal process has been delayed for years due to disputes over evidence obtained through CIA torture or 'enhanced interrogation.'
Reported by only some outlets
- The deal would have required defendants to answer questions from 9/11 survivors at a public sentencing hearing.
- The Supreme Court's order was unsigned and lacked an explanation.
- A military judge recently threw out 2007 FBI statements from Mohammed, ruling they were not voluntary.
- The Trump administration supported Austin's decision to revoke the deals.
- Brigadier General Susan Escallier was the official who originally approved the plea deals.
- A fourth alleged plotter, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, was not part of this specific appeal.
Left-leaning outlets tend to emphasize…
The Guardian highlights that 9/11 victims' families were 'split' on the deal, noting that some saw the plea agreement as the 'best hope' for ending the 'long, painful case' while others wanted a trial.
Right-leaning outlets tend to emphasize…
The New York Post emphasizes the 'national outcry' following the announcement of the plea deal and refers to the appeal as a bid by an 'Al Qaeda big' to restore an 'infamous' agreement.
Where coverage diverges
Coverage diverges along left/right lines — see Framing tab for specifics.
About these outlets
CadNews does not determine absolute truth or endorse political viewpoints. It compares publicly available reporting, identifies shared facts, highlights framing differences, and flags uncertainty.
