A bipartisan group of lawmakers will revisit the landmark 9/11 Commission Report in the coming year, examining what progress the United States has made on its recommendations and identifying where gaps remain as the nation prepares to mark the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks.
The initiative, announced Thursday on the 24th anniversary of 9/11, will be led by Representatives Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), both of whom represent states deeply scarred by the attacks. The review will take place under the auspices of the House Intelligence Committee, with a focus on assessing intelligence reforms and counterterrorism preparedness in today’s rapidly evolving security environment.
“Today, as a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee and a proud New Yorker, I am honored to announce that I will chair the bipartisan review of the 9/11 Commission Report,” Stefanik said. “It is important that the intelligence community is equipped to counter terrorism over the next 25 years amid a quickly evolving landscape.”
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) and Ranking Member Jim Himes (D-Conn.) formally established the review panel. Lawmakers said the process will include hearings, classified briefings, and public events, culminating in a set of updated recommendations before next year’s milestone anniversary.
“The attacks on 9/11 fundamentally altered the security posture of the United States and the way we engage in the world,” Crawford said. “As we mark the 25th anniversary of one of the darkest days in U.S. history next year, we must ensure our intelligence community and its capabilities remain one step ahead of our rapidly evolving adversaries.”
The original 9/11 Commission Report, released in 2004, stretched 585 pages and represented the most comprehensive federal inquiry into the events leading up to the attacks. After reviewing 2.5 million documents and conducting over 1,200 interviews, the bipartisan commission concluded that systemic intelligence failures and poor coordination among federal agencies left the U.S. vulnerable. One of its most significant outcomes was the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to unify oversight across America’s sprawling intelligence network.
For Gottheimer, the effort is as personal as it is political. “Twenty-four years after 9/11, we are still living with its aftermath — especially in New Jersey, where we lost hundreds of loved ones, friends, and first responders,” he said. “The pain of that day has never faded, and neither has our responsibility to honor the victims by preventing future attacks and keeping Americans safe.”
The attacks of September 11, 2001, killed 2,977 people after hijacked planes crashed into the Twin Towers in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, and a field in Pennsylvania where passengers fought back, preventing a fourth strike on the U.S. Capitol. Thousands more — including firefighters, police officers, and recovery workers — later developed serious health issues from exposure to toxic debris at Ground Zero.
Himes underscored that the security challenges of 2001 are not the same as those of today. “Twenty-four years later, we continue to honor the victims by doing all in our power to prevent future attacks and keep Americans safe,” he said. “The intelligence community underwent substantial reorganization after 9/11. Now we have a responsibility to ask hard questions about how far those reforms have taken us, and where more work is still needed.”
The attacks, carried out by al-Qaeda under the direction of Osama bin Laden, triggered the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and ushered in the global war on terror. Nearly a decade later, U.S. special forces killed bin Laden in Pakistan, closing one chapter but leaving ongoing debates about America’s counterterrorism posture, civil liberties, and foreign policy commitments.
With the 25th anniversary approaching, lawmakers say the new review is less about reopening old wounds than about ensuring vigilance in an era when threats come from both terrorist networks and emerging adversaries like cyber actors and state-sponsored extremists.
0 Comments