Trump effect? Canadian broadcaster tells journalists not to call 9/11 a terrorist attack ahead of 25th anniversary

Amid fresh tensions between Canada and the United States, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has reportedly issued guidance to journalists instructing them not to describe the September 11 attacks simply as a “terrorist attack.” The directive was reportedly circulated to reporters and editors ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attacks.

The guidance, reportedly authored by Basem Boshra, Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust at CBC News, describes the events as hijackings that resulted in passenger jets crashing in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Manhattan, causing the destruction of the World Trade Center.

Canadian journalist Warren Kinsella first reported on the memo and shared a screenshot of the directive. The National Post and other Canadian journalists also reported receiving a copy.



A CBC spokeswoman said the organization's guidance on the terms “terrorist” and “terrorism” is to use them with attribution, a practice followed by several major news organizations. She also pointed to previous comments on the issue from CBC News editor-in-chief and general manager Brodie Fenlon.

Why CBC avoids the term 'terrorist'

In an October 2023 blog post, Fenlon advised CBC employees to “exercise extreme caution before using the words terrorist or terrorism.”

He explained that CBC News does not independently designate specific groups as terrorists or particular acts as terrorism, arguing that the terms carry significant political and emotional meaning that could affect journalistic reporting.

The reported guidance therefore appears to be consistent with an existing CBC editorial policy rather than a newly introduced rule specifically targeting coverage of 9/11.

The September 11 attacks were carried out by 19 al-Qaeda hijackers who seized four commercial airplanes in the United States. Two planes were flown into the World Trade Center towers in New York, another struck the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., and a fourth crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers and crew attempted to regain control of the aircraft.

The attacks killed nearly 3,000 people and became one of the defining events of the 21st century.

CBC guidance emerges amid Canada-US tensions

The timing of the reported memo has drawn attention because it comes as relations between Canada and the United States remain strained by an escalating trade dispute.

The CBC, Canada's public broadcaster for radio and television, received more than C$1.5 billion in taxpayer funding for the 2025-26 fiscal year.

Earlier this week, Ottawa announced counter-tariffs ranging from 15% to 50% on U.S. products, broadly matching President Donald Trump's latest 50% duties on C$27.6 billion (US$20 billion) worth of Canadian goods.

Trump's tariffs took effect on Saturday, while Canada's counter-tariffs are scheduled to come into effect on September 8.

The White House has accused Canada of “discriminatory treatment” of U.S. alcohol, automobile and dairy products as part of the latest trade measures.

“We don’t need Canada, they need us!” Trump posted this week, repeating a claim he has made throughout the trade dispute.

Why the Canada-US relationship matters

Canada is the second-largest U.S. trading partner after Mexico, making the dispute economically significant for both countries. Energy is particularly important to the relationship.

The two countries exchanged roughly $872 billion in goods and services last year. Canadian crude oil imports account for nearly 20% of total U.S. petroleum consumption, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, part of the Department of Energy.

Against that backdrop, the reported CBC guidance has prompted debate over whether the broadcaster's language reflects standard journalistic caution or whether its timing has a broader political significance.

CBC's stated position, however, predates the current trade tensions. Its 2023 guidance indicates that the broadcaster's caution around the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” is part of a longer-standing editorial approach.