• A federal appeals court blocks plea deal for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, ruling the Pentagon had final authority. The decision, supported by both Trump and Biden administrations, resets the military commission’s long-stalled path toward justice in one of America’s deadliest terror attacks.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (TDR) — A sharply divided federal appeals court on Friday struck down a proposed plea agreement for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, dismantling a rare bipartisan effort to resolve a decades-long legal battle over justice for the 2001 terrorist assault that killed nearly 3,000 Americans.

In a 2–1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned a lower military court’s decision that had allowed the plea deal to proceed without the consent of then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. The rejected agreement would have spared Mohammed and two co-defendants from the death penalty in exchange for life sentences and cooperation with the government.

Pentagon Overrides Military Court

The appeals panel concluded that Austin acted within his legal authority when he rescinded the deal in 2023, arguing that such a pivotal decision in a case of this magnitude should not proceed without the express approval of the defense secretary.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

“Having properly assumed the convening authority, the Secretary determined that the ‘families and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out,’” wrote Judges Patricia Millett, appointed by President Obama, and Neomi Rao, appointed by President Trump. “The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment.”

The decision unravels nearly two years of negotiations and signals that the long-delayed Guantanamo trials will likely continue for the foreseeable future, raising new questions about the U.S. government’s ability to bring closure to victims’ families and uphold military justice.

Legal Dispute Over Process

Attorneys for Mohammed and his co-defendants argued that the plea agreement had already taken legal effect and that Austin’s rejection came too late. Both the military judge at Guantanamo Bay and a military appeals panel had agreed, allowing the deal to advance.

But the appellate court firmly rejected that conclusion. “This is not simply a bureaucratic dispute,” said a former Pentagon legal adviser. “This case goes to the heart of civilian control of the military and the government’s duty to see justice served—especially in cases of national trauma.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Robert Wilkins, also an Obama appointee, accused the court of overreach: “The government has not come within a country mile of proving clearly and indisputably that the Military Judge erred.”

Biden and Trump Aligned on Appeal

The case is notable for uniting two administrations rarely on the same page. The appeal to reverse the plea deal was initiated under President Joe Biden and continued under President Trump, underscoring the bipartisan sensitivity of abandoning the possibility of the death penalty in the most devastating terrorist attack in American history.

Victims’ families have long expressed frustration at the delays and legal complexities, but many also oppose plea deals that fall short of full accountability.

Should 9/11 planners be spared the death penalty in the name of expediency—or does justice demand a trial?

Follow The Dupree Report on YouTube

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10