Trump sows doubt on plan to livestream US military execution as backlash grows

The plan would allow people to watch Nidal Hasan’s execution live, rather than limiting it to authorized witnesses. A Pentagon official said the broadcast was planned after Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth promised that the execution would be public. The proposal matters because livestreaming would turn a military execution into a widely accessible public event.

The plan remains uncertain because Trump said authorities were “making a determination” about the broadcast. He supported the death penalty in Hasan’s case but said he did not care how Hasan died, as long as he was killed. Vice President JD Vance also said he did not know whether the livestream would actually happen.

The execution is scheduled for December 3 at Fort Hood, Texas. It has already drawn criticism from Republicans, Democrats, the United Nations human-rights chief, Catholic leaders, and Amnesty International. Technology companies had not said whether their platforms would carry it, while TikTok cited a policy banning graphic violence.

A firing-squad execution is a method in which a condemned person is positioned before several designated shooters, who fire rifles at the same time or in sequence. The gunfire is intended to cause death. Exact procedures can vary by jurisdiction, and the article does not provide the detailed military protocol for Hasan’s execution.

In Hasan’s case, the firing squad would be a military punishment carried out at Fort Hood, Texas. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said it would be the military’s first firing squad execution since World War II. The planned method therefore links a current case to a rarely used part of US military history.

The execution is scheduled for December 3, but the article says officials were still deciding whether it would be livestreamed. That dispute has shifted attention from the method alone to the possibility of making the killing publicly viewable. Critics say broadcasting it would increase the cruelty and resemble public executions condemned abroad.

Nidal Hasan was the perpetrator of a deadly 2009 attack at Fort Hood, Texas. He gunned down 13 people and wounded 30 others. Twelve of those killed and 30 of those wounded were soldiers. A civilian police officer who responded shot Hasan, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.

Hasan chose to conduct his own defence during the trial. He called no witnesses, gave no testimony, and made no attempt to deny the charges. The court heard that he opposed US military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan and had communicated online with alleged Al-Qaeda figure Anwar al-Awlaki.

A military jury sentenced Hasan to death in 2013. Court-appointed defence attorneys expressed concern that he was seeking execution. The article describes the planned punishment as supportable by President Trump, but the proposed livestream has prompted criticism from lawmakers, religious leaders, human-rights officials, and advocacy groups.

The planned execution would be highly unusual because the US military has not used a firing squad since 1945. That would make Hasan’s case the first military firing-squad execution in roughly eight decades. The method is therefore historically rare, even within the broader history of military executions.

The article gives two comparisons. It says the last US military execution was carried out in 1961, when John Bennett was hanged for rape and attempted murder. It also cites the Death Penalty Information Center, which says 135 troops have been executed by the US military since 1916. Those figures show that executions occurred, but firing squads have been especially uncommon.

Hasan’s execution is scheduled for December 3 at Fort Hood, the site of his 2009 attack. If carried out, it would mark a return to a military execution method last used after World War II. The proposed livestream adds another unprecedented feature and has fueled bipartisan and international condemnation.

If livestreamed, Hasan’s execution would no longer be witnessed only by authorized officials and selected observers. Anyone with access to the broadcast could watch it in real time. That would make the execution more public, more widely distributable, and potentially permanent through recordings or online discussion, although the article does not say whether recordings would be allowed.

The key change is visibility. Hegseth said people should be able to watch because the execution was public, while Trump and Vance questioned whether a livestream would happen. TikTok said its policy bans graphic violence, and YouTube, Meta, and X had not responded about whether they would permit the broadcast.

Critics argue that livestreaming would compound the cruelty. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called it tantamount to a public execution and said it would breach the prohibition of torture. Lawmakers compared the practice with Iran and the Taliban, while Amnesty International said streaming would worsen the human-rights violation.

Public executions make punishment visible to a broad audience instead of restricting it to officials or invited witnesses. In the article, Amnesty International says at least 17 public executions were known to have occurred in 2025: six in Afghanistan and 11 in Iran. The figures show that public execution remains an active practice in some countries.

Critics apply that comparison to the proposed Hasan livestream because broadcasting would expand the audience dramatically. Republican Representative Austin Scott said livestreaming executions is what jihadists do. Democratic Senator Mark Kelly compared public executions with practices by Iran and the Taliban. Their concern is not only the death penalty, but the decision to display the killing.

The UN human-rights chief said a livestream would be tantamount to a public execution and breach the absolute prohibition of torture. Amnesty International said it would compound the cruelty. Whether the broadcast proceeds remains unsettled, with Trump and Vance both casting doubt on the Pentagon’s initial plan.

The death penalty is a punishment in which the government executes a person convicted of a serious crime. In Hasan’s case, a military jury imposed the sentence in 2013 after his Fort Hood attack. President Trump supports the death penalty in this case, and Defence Secretary Hegseth stressed that serious actions have serious consequences.

The disagreement centers on justice, state power, and human dignity. Supporters view execution as an appropriate consequence for an exceptionally deadly attack. Critics reject the government’s authority to kill as punishment or argue that execution is inherently cruel. The article does not present a court ruling resolving the broader legal debate.

Amnesty International called the death penalty a violation of human rights. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said livestreaming an execution would breach the absolute prohibition of torture. The proposed broadcast has intensified the debate by raising concerns about public spectacle as well as the punishment itself.