To look at the front page of the New York Times of Tuesday, September 11th, 2001 is to reach back into another era – an era, in many ways, which doesn’t look very different to that of today.
The president was under pressure over the economy, there was violence in the Middle East and the New York Giants had lost to the Denver Broncos.
But even before many New Yorkers would have opened their newspaper on that clear, sunny September morning, America and the world had been changed forever.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What is the legacy of 9/11?
At 8.46am and 9.03am, two hijacked airliners were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Another jet was crashed into the Pentagon near Washington DC and a fourth was brought down in a field in Pennsylvania.
What had seemed unimaginable – an unprecedented terrorist attack on American soil, striking at the very heart of society and witnessed on television screens around the world – was a shock the country has still not absorbed.
Advertisement
The results of a recent USA Today/Gallup poll are astonishing. Some 60% of Americans say the attacks permanently changed the way the country lives, more than the number who felt that way on the tenth anniversary.
The youngest, and those who weren’t even born on September 11th, felt that impact the strongest of all.
More on 9/11 Attacks
Related Topics:
Twenty years on, the debate continues about how much America and the world was altered by the events of September 11th but in myriad ways, big and small, the scars of that day are still evident.
Endless War
Who would have thought that when the US launched airstrikes on Afghanistan within a month of September 11th that it would be almost 20 years before the last American troops would finally leave the country?
The initial aim of the invasion, ordered by US president George W Bush, was to crush al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, the terrorist group and its leader blamed for planning and carrying out the attacks, and deny them the base from which they had operated. Prime Minister Tony Blair was a key ally of the US in offering military support.
But Mr Bush had already told the US Congress and the American people that the country was engaged in a new type of military action that went far beyond a few targeted strikes against a single enemy.
The “war on terror” was born and it would not end, he said, “until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated”.
The war in Afghanistan became the longest in US history. Some 800,000 served there and nearly 2,500 died. More than 20,000 are listed as wounded – the true cost of psychological wounds is far higher.
The more than 400 UK service personnel who died in Afghanistan add to thousands of Afghan civilians, police and military personnel, aid workers and contractors over the 20 years.
While the war in Afghanistan enjoyed public support initially, that waned over the years, especially after the killing of bin Laden in 2011.
That the “war on terror” encompassed the far more controversial invasion of Iraq – in the supposed hunt for stocks of weapons of mass destruction that were never found – would cost a further 4,500 American military lives, some 179 British and 100,000 Iraqi. A million Americans served in Iraq.
Everywhere you look are remnants of the war. The prison camp at Guantanamo Bay just one we almost forget these days.
The pursuit of the “war on terror” would define American foreign policy and arguments rage about whether it was won or lost.
It is undeniable that the spectre of a repeat of September 11th, the fear of an attack on the homeland, has driven American actions abroad for far longer than anyone expected.
Air travel
Anyone who has flown into, out of or around the US in recent years will be familiar with those blue-uniformed custodians of the body scanner, the TSA.
Before September 11th, not only did the Transportation Security Administration not exist but airport security was a pale shadow of the operation we see today. Fewer than 10% of checked bags were screened back then.
The TSA was built from scratch within months and in direct response to the September 11th attacks. It is now a behemoth with a budget of $8bn and has undoubtedly made air travel safer.
The law that created it also mandated that all bags be screened, cockpit doors be reinforced and air marshals be put on planes.
If you can remember flying pre-2001, or if you watch an old film with an airport scene, it was a time of no lines at security, no need for a boarding pass to get to the departure gate and far less stress.
But as previously-unseen threats manifest, so too have security measures. Things that could be used as a weapon, like blades, were banned. Shoes had to be removed, a move that followed the failed shoe bomb attack in 2001, and electronics received extra screening.
The limit on liquids which could be used to make a bomb have been accepted, sometimes grudgingly, by passengers along with those growing queues and the need to arrive earlier at the airport.
While some success is obvious – 3,200 guns seized at airports last year, almost all loaded – much of the security infrastructure is hidden from view with vetting and background checks and behavioural analysis part of the system. This has also led to suspicions and complaints of racial profiling.
And like the booming business in trusted-traveller programmes – where passengers pay fees and disclose background information to bypass the checks – it has come at the cost of another big aspect of change in our post-September 11th world: privacy.
Surveillance and privacy
Just 45 days after the September 11th attacks, the Patriot Act was signed into law with the stated aim of tightening US national security.
It expanded the surveillance reach of law enforcement including permitting the tapping of international and domestic telephone lines. In essence, it made it easier for the US government to monitor US citizens.
Opponents say it was the birth of a “mass surveillance regime”, expanding powers to carry out electronic searches without court orders and property searches without someone’s consent or even knowledge.
In the years that followed, those programmes were expanded and supported by the Bush and Obama administrations and Congress.
The revelations of whistle-blower Edward Snowden in 2013 reverberated around the world, his allegations of the broad extent of the US National Security Agency’s efforts to gather data on a massive scale revealed the expansion of the power granted to the intelligence services.
Civil liberties groups began a fight against the scope of the laws arguing they undermined privacy rights and are, in some cases, unconstitutional.
But, as Congress quietly renewed many of the powers, public opinion remained broadly supportive of the intelligence services right to snoop in the name of national security.
A quarter of Americans, though, did say they had changed the way they used technology in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
Congress has now acted to rein in some of those powers and the more controversial data collection techniques have been abandoned.
But in an era when data is exploding, and with a greater awareness of transparency and privacy, the tension between civil liberties and national security is alive and well.
Anti-Muslim sentiment
In 2000, 12 anti-Muslim assaults were reported to the FBI in the US. In 2001, the number had leapt to 93. It has never returned to pre-2001 levels.
A decade and a half after September 11th, half of Muslims in the US said they found it more difficult to live in the country as a result of the attacks.
But it initially appeared the backlash against the Muslim community that everyone had feared could be averted.
Six days after the attack, President Bush visited a mosque in Washington and condemned harassment of the Muslim community. “The face of terror is not the truth faith of Islam,” he said. “That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.”
Polls taken two months after September 11th showed 59% of Americans had a favourable view of Muslim Americans, up from the number before September 11th.
But in the years that followed, polls showed a growing suspicion of people of Middle Eastern descent and a growing number of Americans who associated Islam with violence.
Even though the Muslim population has grown in the years since September 11th, researchers say many Americans know little about Islam and that views about the Muslim community have divided along political lines.
A survey by Pew Research in 2007 found that half of Americans believe that Islam is “not part of mainstream American society”, but that view was held by 68% of Republicans and just 37% of Democrats.
American psyche and patriotism
It is one very visible testament to the impact of September 11th on every street in America
The flags that fly on porches and front lawns, the protocol of never leaving them there unlit after dark, gained an added meaning for many. There is also a greater suspicion of those who don’t fly the flag, who don’t wear their patriotism proudly in post September 11th America.
Millions of words have been written about the surge in patriotism after September 11th. President Bush harnessed the spirit, with a bullhorn in one hand and his arm around a firefighter at Ground Zero, to rally Americans around the flag.
It has often been said that the US military saw a surge in enlistment after September 11th. In fact, despite a surge in calls to recruiting centres, the increase in the number who actually signed up was negligible. In 2005, the US fell short of its annual recruitment goal.
But there is no doubt many of those who did enlist in 2001 and 2002 were motivated by a desire to seek revenge. And, after all, the US had not been actively engaged in an official war until the invasion of Afghanistan.
Bush’s exhortation that “you are either with us or against us” struck a chord.
In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, there was a surge in the number of people looking to volunteer for charities and donate blood. A similar rise in attendance was seen at churches.
When researchers looked at all of those numbers again nine months after September 11th, only the levels of patriotism remained as high.
This took root in American culture as even Hollywood focused on patriotism rather than violence.
And the overt reverence for the military and first responders and their service is an undoubted legacy of what Americans witnessed on September 11th.
Changed the world
While the ways in which September 11th changed America are unmistakable, the impact of those attacks around the globe is a varied picture of the subtle and brutal.
For the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, years of war and its terrible costs are a living embodiment of America’s reaction to the attack on home soil. The repercussions have been felt throughout their neighbours and beyond.
The loss of life of British military personnel, and those of other allied nations in those wars, are scars with which hundreds of families still live.
If few people in the broader population paid attention to the names of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden before September 11th, many countries have seen first-hand in the years since the devastation of the sort of attacks they inspire.
The world has also drawn lessons from the withdrawal from Afghanistan and whether the “war on terror” succeeded. Wherever we are in the world, even if it is something as minor as taking our belt off at airport security, the impacts of September 11th are with us.
Twenty years on
One third of all Americans alive today were children or hadn’t been born on September 11th 2001. Everyone else, as they always say, knows exactly where they were when it happened.
At the time many feared it was the beginning of a wave of such attacks but, for whatever combination of reasons, it hasn’t been. Americans have been protected, even if it has come at a cost.
But 9/11 shook the confidence of the world’s superpower and not even the passing of twenty years has fully restored that.
It was the first time a US president had been convicted of or charged with a criminal offence.
Trump had tried to cover up “hush money” payments to a porn star in the days before the 2016 election.
When Stormy Daniels‘ claimsof a sexual liaison threatened to upend his presidential campaign, Trump directed his lawyer to pay $130,000 (£102,000) to keep her quiet.
The payment buried the story and he later won the presidency.
Trump denied the charges and said the case was politically motivated. He also denied the sexual encounter took place.
New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan today delayed the sentencing, which had been due to take place on Tuesday.
Advertisement
The office of district attorney Alvin Bragg had asked the judge to postpone all proceedings until Trump finishes his four-year presidency, which starts on 20 January.
Trump’s lawyers say the case should be dismissed because it will create “unconstitutional impediments” to his ability to govern.
Responding to Friday’s decision, a Trump campaign spokesman said: “The American People have issued a mandate to return him to office and dispose of all remnants of the Witch Hunt cases.”
The judge set a 2 December deadline for Trump’s lawyers to file their motion, while prosecutors have until 9 December to respond.
He did not set a new date for sentencing or indicate when he would rule on any motion to throw out the case.
Even before Trump’s win in this month’s election, experts said a jail term was unlikely and a fine or probation more probable.
But his resounding victory over Kamala Harris made the prospect of time behind bars or probation even less likely.
Trump, 78, was also charged last year in three other cases.
One involved him keeping classified documents after he left office and the other two centre on alleged efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
A Florida judge dismissed the documents case in July, the Georgia election case is in limbo, and the Justice Department is expected to wind down the federal election case as it has a policy of not prosecuting a sitting president.
Trump last week nominated his lawyers in the hush money case, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, for senior roles in the Justice department.
When he re-enters the White House, Trump will also have the power to shut down the Georgia and New York cases.
Donald Trump has pledged for years to surround himself with ultra-loyalists who can mould his government to his vision without barriers.
That’s precisely why he picked Matt Gaetz. Now he’s out, Pam Bondi is in and she’s equally loyal.
Gaetz was uniquely unpopular on Capitol Hill but ultra-MAGA and ultra-loyal to the president-elect.
He was chosen by the president-elect to do his bidding inside the Justice Department as attorney general.
Critics called his pick “a red alert moment for democracy” and the man a “gonzo agent of chaos” – language that would surely only affirm Trump’s decision in his own proudly disruptive mind.
If it wasn’t for the fact that the president-elect is himself a convicted felon, and a man found liable in a civil court of his own sexual offences, the prospect of Gaetz, with all his baggage, making it through the nomination process would have seemed remote.
But Donald Trump’s return to the White House suggested anything is possible.
And so, beyond his loyalty, Gaetz was Trump’s test for his foot soldiers on Capitol Hill. How loyal were they? Would they wave through anyone he appointed?
It turns out that Gaetz, and the storm around his private life, was too much for a proportion of them.
Advertisement
At least five Senate Republicans were flatly against Matt Gaetz’s confirmation. We understand that they communicated to other senators and those close to Trump that they were unlikely to be swayed.
They included the Republican old guard like Senator Mitch McConnell.
Beyond the hard “no” senators, there were between 20 and 30 other Republicans who were very uncomfortable about having to vote for Gaetz on the Senate floor.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:23
Trump pick Matt Gaetz withdraws
The key question is whether Gaetz was Trump’s intentional wild card crazy choice that he knew, deep down, would probably never fly.
Was Gaetz the candidate he had accepted would be vetoed by senators – who would then feel compelled to wave the rest of his nominees through?
Will Pete Hegseth’s alleged sexual impropriety concern them as they consider the suitability of the former Fox News host and army major to run the Department of Defence?
What about Tulsi Gabbard, the candidate Russian state TV calls ‘our girl’, and the appropriateness of her running America’s intelligence agencies?
These are all appointments that the politicians on Capitol Hill must consider and confirm in the weeks ahead.
We don’t yet know who Trump will choose to direct the FBI.
There are some names being floated which will make the establishment of Washington shudder but then that’s precisely why Trump was elected. He is the disrupter. He said so at every rally, on repeat.
He was quick to pivot to another name to replace Gaetz.
Bondi is the former attorney general of Florida. Professionally she is in a different league to Gaetz. She’s been a tough prosecutor, with a no-nonsense reputation.
She is also among the most loyal of loyalists. Her attachment to Trump stretches way back.
I first came across her in Philadelphia in November 2020 when she was among Trump surrogates claiming the election back then had been stolen from them by Joe Bidenand the Democrats.
She was a key proponent of the false claims the election had been rigged and Trump was the rightful winner.
The court cases concluding that was all nonsense didn’t seem to convince her.
Now she is poised to head up the Department of Justice as the country’s top law enforcement official.
Within hours of taking office, president-elect Donald Trump plans to begin rolling out policies including large-scale deportations, according to his transition team.
Sky News partner network NBC News has spoken with more than half a dozen people familiar with the executive orders that his team plans to enact.
One campaign official said changes are expected at a pace that is “like nothing you’ve seen in history”, to signal a dramatic break from President Joe Biden’s administration.
Mr Trump is preparing on day one to overturn specific policies put in place by Mr Biden. Among the measures, reported by sources close to the transition team, are:
• The speedy and large-scale deportations of illegal immigrants
• Ending travel reimbursement for military members seeking abortion care
• Restricting transgender service members’ access to gender-affirming care
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
But much of the first day is likely to focus on stopping illegal immigration – the centrepiece of Trump’s candidacy. He is expected to sign up to five executive orders aimed at dealing with that issue alone after he is sworn in on 20 January.
“There will without question be a lot of movement quickly, likely day one, on the immigration front,” a top Trump ally said.
Advertisement
“There will be a push to make a huge early show and assert himself to show his campaign promises were not hollow.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:23
Donald Trump ally Matt Gaetz has withdrawn his name from consideration to be the next US attorney general.
But Mr Trump’s campaign pledges also could be difficult to implement.
Deporting people on the scale he wants will be a logistical challenge that could take years. Questions also remain about promised tax cuts.
Meanwhile, his pledge to end the war between Russia and Ukraine in just 24 hours would be near impossible.
Even so, advisers based at Mr Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort or at nearby offices in West Palm Beach, Florida, are reportedly strategising about ending the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
Following his decisive victory on 5 November, the president-elect has moved swiftly to build a cabinet and senior White House team.
As of Thursday, he had selected more than 30 people for senior positions in his administration, compared with just three at a similar point in his 2016 transition.
Stephen Moore, a senior economic adviser in Mr Trump’s campaign, told NBC News: “The thing to realise is Trump is no dummy.
“He knows he’s got two to three years at most to get anything done. And then he becomes a lame duck and we start talking about [the presidential election in] 2028.”