Lt. Col. Michael Schrama, an Air Force judge presiding over the military commission handling the 9/11 case, threw out a confession by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed last week on grounds that it was not given voluntarily. The ruling complicates what has already been a decades-long wait for the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks to stand trial.
Schrama rejected prosecutors' request to begin the trial in January 2027 and instead set it for June 2028, just days before the 25th anniversary of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. The decision was not initially made public.
Scrutiny of Schrama's record has resurfaced a 2023 essay he wrote titled "Creating a Codified Legal Response to Domestic Extremism in the Ranks" for the national security and foreign policy publication War on the Rocks. In that essay, Schrama argued that military institutions tend to become more conservative and isolated from civilian society.
He wrote that "these conservative tendencies are constantly reinforced, and young military members can be easy prey for the extreme right-wing groups that relate through similar conservative ideology."
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive critics have focused on what they describe as the broader implications of Schrama's decision to exclude Mohammed's confession. Civil liberties advocates argue that military commissions have long faced scrutiny over their fairness and transparency compared to civilian courts.
Some Democratic lawmakers and national security Democrats have argued for years that the 9/11 case should be transferred from military commission to federal civilian court, where defendants have fewer procedural protections under military law. They point out that Mohammed was previously held in CIA custody before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay, raising questions about how any confession was obtained.
Former Obama-era officials noted during debates over the military commissions that defendants facing terrorism charges in civilian courts have historically faced higher conviction rates and more robust appeal rights than those processed through military tribunals.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative critics of Schrama's decision have focused on what they describe as a pattern of legal setbacks favoring suspected terrorists. White House senior advisor Stephen Mueller told Fox News, "Our judicial system is so badly broken it sides at every turn with predators, monsters and, in this case, a 9/11 mastermind."
Republican lawmakers have long argued that military commissions are the appropriate venue for terrorism cases involving enemy combatants captured abroad. They argue that civilian courts lack jurisdiction over foreign nationals who participated in acts of war against the United States.
Critics on the right have also raised concerns about Schrama's 2023 essay, arguing that a judge presiding over such a significant national security case should not have publicly expressed views that could be seen as politicizing military institutions. Some conservative commentators have called for Schrama to recuse himself from the case given his previously stated positions.
What the Numbers Show
In his 2023 essay, Schrama cited several data points to support his argument about extremism in military ranks:
A 2021 study by the Center for Strategic & International Studies found that military personnel were responsible for 17.6% of domestic terrorism plots and attacks in the United States.
Approximately 12% of those charged with participating in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot had some form of military experience, including service members on active duty.
Schrama noted a 2019 case in which Coast Guard officer Christopher Hasson pleaded guilty to gun and drug charges after prosecutors said he stashed weapons and planned to attack Democratic politicians, Supreme Court justices, and journalists. Federal prosecutors did not charge Hasson with domestic terrorism due to the absence of a federal domestic terrorism statute.
The September 11 attacks killed nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
The Bottom Line
Schrama's ruling excluding Mohammed's confession means prosecutors must rely on other evidence to prove their case. The decision to push the trial date to June 2028 extends a pretrial process that has already lasted more than two decades since the attacks.
Mohammed's case, along with those of three co-defendants Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin 'Atash, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, and Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, has been stuck in pretrial proceedings for years. Schrama became the fifth judge assigned to preside over the case in 2025.
Ronald Flesvig, a spokesperson for the Military Commissions Convening Authority, declined to comment on Schrama's ruling or essay, saying the essay was published "not in his capacities as a judge for the military commissions." The next phase of proceedings will determine what evidence prosecutors can present when the trial finally begins.