The prosecution of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the man accused of helping orchestrate the Sept. 11 attacks, has been weakened by the history of how the United States interrogated him. Nearly two decades after his FBI questioning, a military judge has ruled that his alleged confession cannot be used at trial.

The decision is a major setback for prosecutors, who have struggled to move the Guantánamo case forward. The conservative framing emphasizes the immediate evidentiary loss: Judge Michael Schrama excluded Mohammed’s 2007 statements after finding that prosecutors had not shown they were voluntary. In his ruling, Schrama wrote that “the prosecution has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Mohammad’s statements to the F.B.I. were voluntarily given.”¹

The liberal account places that ruling within the broader legacy of CIA detention and interrogation. Mohammed had previously been waterboarded and subjected to other coercive methods, which the judge found had created a fear that he would face severe mistreatment if he did not cooperate. Schrama also concluded that Mohammed was not given a Miranda warning and was told he could not consult a lawyer.²

That contrast defines the case: prosecutors and former investigators focus on the FBI’s later conduct, while defense attorneys and critics argue that earlier torture contaminated everything that followed. Retired FBI agent Frank Pellegrino said he believed Mohammed confessed voluntarily because “I couldn’t have told him in any more explicit a way that he did not have to talk to me.”² He nevertheless acknowledged that the courts must determine whether the later interviews met legal standards.

The government is considering an appeal, while a trial has been scheduled for June 2028. Mohammed could face the death penalty if convicted, though prior plea agreements that would have spared him capital punishment were previously overturned.