Plans to carry out the execution of former U.S. Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan by military firing squad have sparked significant debate and opposition as December 3 approaches. Hasan was convicted for the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, where he fatally shot 13 people in Texas. This execution would mark the first U.S. military firing squad execution since 1945.
The Pentagon initially indicated that the execution would be livestreamed for public viewing, a move confirmed by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. However, President Donald Trump subsequently stated that no final decision had been made regarding the broadcast, although he expressed clear support for Hasan’s execution. “They are making a determination about that, but he will be killed,” Trump said, adding he was indifferent to the method of execution as long as it proceeded. Vice President J.D. Vance expressed skepticism about the livestream, saying he did not “know that that’s actually going to happen,” and affirmed he would not watch if it were broadcast.
Opposition to livestreaming the execution has come from various quarters, including lawmakers, religious leaders, and international human rights organizations. Republican Representative Austin Scott supported the death penalty for Hasan but condemned the idea of livestreaming, stating that “livestreaming executions is what jihadists do" and asserting, "America is better than that." Democratic Senator Mark Kelly similarly held that Hasan deserved justice but argued public executions likened to those in countries like Iran and Taliban-controlled regions should be rejected.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ president, Archbishop Paul Coakley, described the proposed livestream as a “barbaric promotion of a culture of death,” while Walter Kim, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, warned against turning state executions into public spectacles that undermine human dignity. A spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights condemned public executions, including livestreaming, as violations of international prohibitions against torture and degrading treatment. Amnesty International labeled the use of a firing squad “reprehensible.”
Some Republican figures have voiced similar concerns. Senator John Curtis cautioned on social media that “a civilisation erodes when it cultivates an appetite for executions as a form of entertainment.” Senator Thom Tillis and others emphasized that broadcasting the execution would align the U.S. with extremist practices. Joe Kent, former head of the National Counterterrorism Center under Trump, warned that airing the execution could provide “free propaganda” for terrorists, aiding radicalization and recruitment.
Details about the execution’s logistics remain sparse. The Pentagon declined to confirm whether the families of Hasan’s victims would be invited, and it is unclear how the military will select the firing squad or the exact protocols to be followed. While federal law bars the recording or broadcasting of executions in the federal prison system, no similar prohibition formally exists for military executions, and previous court rulings have upheld limited media access.
Hasan, now 56 and reportedly confined to a wheelchair, defended his actions during his 2013 trial by claiming he sought to halt a U.S. war on Islam. The planned execution nonetheless arrives amid broader national discussions on the death penalty, intensified recently by a botched lethal injection in Tennessee and ongoing political contests ahead of the U.S. midterm elections.