FirstAlerts

Trial Date Set for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Three Co-Defendants

A military judge has scheduled a June 2028 trial for the alleged 9/11 mastermind and three co-defendants, according to conflicting reports.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 26, 2026, 5:45 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 26, 2026, 3:04 p.m. ETUpdated Aug 27, 2026, 9:45 p.m. ET
A has set a trial date for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and three co-defendants, according to conflicting reports. NBC Boston reports that the judge ruled Mohammed will stand trial starting in June 2028, while ABC7 reports the trial will begin in June 2028. Fox10Phoenix reports that the judge set a trial date for Mohammed and three co-defendants. The proceedings are described differently by the outlets. NBC Boston and ABC7 describe the forum as military, while Fox10Phoenix describes it as . Fox10Phoenix and NBC Boston say the proceedings have been , while ABC7 says Mohammed has been . The case is being handled by a , according to NBC Boston, while Fox10Phoenix also describes it as a . Mohammed is accused of orchestrating the plot to crash hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, according to NBC Boston. The co-defendants are Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, according to Fox10Phoenix, ABC7, and NBC Boston. The matter is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; no trial has taken place and the allegations remain undecided.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 26, 2026, 5:45 p.m. ETFirst report

    Military Judge Sets June 2028 Trial Date for Alleged 9/11 Mastermind

    A military judge has ruled that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will stand trial in June 2028, according to abc7.com. The case is a criminal proceeding in a military forum, and Mohammed has been charged. The trial date is set for June 2028, as reported by abc7.com. However, the matter is only at the charging stage and remains undecided; a trial date has been set, but the case has not been resolved.

    Further details have not been established.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 428 Aug 2026, 01:45current

    Updated to reflect the latest reporting on the trial date and forum.

  2. Version 327 Aug 2026, 23:23

    Added a final sentence stating that the matter is at the charging stage and undecided, addressing the open_matter_unnoted warning.

  3. Version 227 Aug 2026, 01:40

    Updated to reflect conflicting reports on forum and stage, and to include the specific trial date of June 2028 as reported by ABC7.

  4. Version 126 Aug 2026, 21:52

    First published.

  5. Version 126 Aug 2026, 21:45current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.