"🚨 9/11 BOMBSHELL: Trump Declassifies & Releases Hidden Documents!"
The CIA has released 71 President’s Daily Brief documents related to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, providing a new look at intelligence presented to senior U.S. officials in the years leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe ordered the documents declassified to coincide with the 25th anniversary of 9/11, calling the release the agency’s largest-ever disclosure of presidential intelligence products connected to the attacks.
The documents span from February 1998 through Sept. 12, 2001, and total more than 100 pages, although substantial portions remain redacted.
Sixty-nine of the 71 documents had not previously been released publicly in their current form, according to reporting on the collection.
Ratcliffe described the disclosure as an “act of exceptional transparency” and said it was consistent with President Donald Trump’s broader declassification efforts.
The records offer additional detail about what American intelligence agencies knew about bin Laden’s intentions before the attacks, including repeated warnings that al-Qaeda wanted to strike U.S. targets.
One newly released document dated Sept. 10, 1998, reported intelligence that bin Laden was considering an attack involving an aircraft loaded with explosives being flown into an American city.
The report did not identify the eventual 9/11 plot, its hijackers, its targets or when such an attack might occur. The intelligence was fragmentary and lacked enough detail for authorities to disrupt a specific operation.
Another July 1998 brief cited reports from sources the CIA itself considered questionable that bin Laden was preparing attacks against the United States, while an October 2000 document said he remained committed to striking American targets but that officials could not determine the location or timing.
By the summer of 2001, the warnings had intensified.
A July 24 briefing discussed the postponement of what intelligence officials believed had been an imminent terrorist operation while warning that preparations for other attacks might still be underway.
The records also add context to the previously declassified Aug. 6, 2001, briefing titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.”
That document told President George W. Bush that bin Laden had wanted to attack inside the United States for years and referenced possible hijackings, suspicious surveillance of federal buildings and ongoing FBI investigations.
The bipartisan 9/11 Commission later found that more than 40 President’s Daily Brief items dealing with bin Laden were produced between Bush’s inauguration and Sept. 10, 2001.
The newly released material does not establish that either the Clinton or Bush administration had advance knowledge of the specific Sept. 11 plot.
Instead, it reinforces the historical record showing that intelligence officials recognized al-Qaeda as a growing threat but lacked the detailed information necessary to identify the hijackers, targets and timing of the attacks.
The 9/11 Commission ultimately concluded that failures before the attacks involved intelligence collection, information sharing, government organization and what it described as a broader “failure of imagination.”
One document from Sept. 12, 2001, the day after the attacks, reported information from a source indicating that the operation had been planned for roughly two years and that the U.S. Capitol had also been considered a target.
Al-Qaeda ultimately hijacked four passenger planes on Sept. 11. Two struck the World Trade Center towers in New York, one hit the Pentagon and a fourth crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers fought back against the hijackers.
Nearly 3,000 people were killed. The CIA release coincided with another significant declassification effort by the National Archives.
The Archives released additional 9/11 Commission materials, including previously redacted portions of interview summaries involving former national security advisers Condoleezza Rice and Sandy Berger, former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke and former CIA Director George Tenet.
Those records provide further information about how officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations assessed the al-Qaeda threat and debated potential responses before the attacks.
Taken together, the newly available documents do not fundamentally overturn what previous investigations concluded about 9/11.
They instead provide a more detailed view of the warnings moving through the intelligence system before the attacks — showing that officials repeatedly recognized bin Laden’s desire to attack Americans, including inside the United States, while still failing to uncover the specific operation that would ultimately become Sept. 11.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
