Updated Oct. 10, 2026, 7:32 a.m. ET
The planned December execution of former Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who was convicted in 2013 of murdering 13 people at a military base and trying to kill many more, is set to be highly unusual.
Not only will the Dec. 3 death sentence be livestreamed for the very first time in American history, according to an Oct. 8 announcement by Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth, but it will also be the first military execution in the United States in about 65 years.
Hegseth confirmed on social media his plan to offer a live viewing feed of the killing – an announcement that has sparked bipartisan criticism and comparisons to public executions carried out by authoritarian regimes.
Hasan was an army psychiatrist who opened fire on fellow service members on Nov. 5, 2009, inside the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, at Fort Hood, Texas, where soldiers were preparing for deployment. He was shot several times by responding officers and is now paralyzed from the waist down. His victims included soldiers and one civilian employee.
With Hasan’s scheduled execution approaching, here’s a look at how the military death penalty works, its history in the United States and why the livestreaming plan has been shocking for many:
How does the military death penalty work?
The U.S. military may impose a death sentence against one of its own members only for certain offenses, including premeditated murder, espionage, sedition and assisting the enemy. In those cases, the defendant will go through a court-martial – the U.S. military’s criminal court system.
Defendants have similar constitutional protections to what they would get in the normal criminal court system, including the right to a lawyer, the presumption of innocence and the right against self-incrimination. As in non-military criminal cases, prosecutors must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, the jury that hears a court-martial case is comprised of a panel of military members who are picked under military procedures, rather than the kind of civilian jury normal criminal defendants have a right to.
Serious convictions, such as a death penalty case, are automatically reviewed by military appeals courts. When someone is facing the death penalty, the U.S. president also has to sign off on that punishment.
What was the death penalty sentencing process for Nidal Malik Hasan?
Hasan was tried and convicted in 2013 on 13 counts of premeditated murder and several more counts of attempted murder by a general court-martial, which sentenced him to death. Before trial, military defense lawyers represented Hasan, but on his request, a military judge allowed him to act as his own lawyer at trial, although he still had assigned “standby” counsel available to help him, if necessary.
During the trial, Hasan himself made statements taking responsibility for the killings and expressing that he carried out the attack in support of the Taliban.
Hasan’s death sentence was upheld after an appeals process. President Donald Trump approved Hasan’s execution.
When did the U.S. military last conduct a death penalty execution?
The last time the U.S. military executed someone through a military death sentence was April 13, 1961. The military killed John A. Bennett, a U.S. Army member, by hanging. Bennett was convicted by court-martial of raping and trying to murder an 11-year-old girl while he was stationed in Austria.
President Dwight Eisenhower signed off on the execution, but by the time it occurred, President John F. Kennedy was in office. Kennedy declined to intervene.
When was the last time the U.S. military executed someone by firing squad?
The last U.S. military firing squad execution was against Eddie Slovik on Jan. 31, 1945. Slovik was drafted into the army and didn’t immediately return to his unit after becoming separated from it. He later openly stated he wouldn’t serve in combat and said in writing that, if released, he would desert again.
Slovik was among tens of thousands of army members who were prosecuted for desertion during World War II, but he was the only American service member actually executed for that offense.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would later become an American president, approved the death sentence. The sentence didn’t require presidential approval because it took place under an earlier set of rules.
Eisenhower later said Slovik was convinced he would never be executed and had scoffed at last-minute efforts to urge him to return to military service, according to a 1963 New York Times article. William Bradford Huie, a journalist who wrote a book on Slovik’s case, told the Times that Slovik likely believed he wouldn’t be executed.
What is the reaction to livestream plan?
Hegseth’s plan to livestream the execution has been faced with widespread, bipartisan criticism.
Sen. John Curtis, R–Utah, warned that “civilization erodes” when a country cultivates an appetite for executions as entertainment. He urged Hegseth to reconsider.
“Secretary Hegseth’s plan to livestream the Fort Hood execution risks feeding that appetite. The victims deserve justice administered with solemnity,” Curtis posted on social media Oct. 9.
Archbishop Paul Coakley, who heads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, reacted in a statement with “shock and great sorrow” to news that the execution would be livestreamed.
“In no way can Hasan’s actions be condoned but this decision is a barbaric promotion of a culture of death and must be reconsidered,” Coakley said.
Sen. Jack Reed, D–Rhode Island, also condemned the announced, arguing that it plays into Hasan’s hands.
The Trump administration is handing Hasan “more power and offering him a global platform to amplify his hateful, anti-American message. This is a gift to anti-American terrorist recruiters,” Reed said in an Oct. 9 statement.
Even Vice President JD Vance seemed hesitant about the plan. He told reporters Oct. 9 that he doesn’t know the livestream is “actually going to happen” and, if it does, “I’m not going to be watching it.”
Do foreign governments livestream executions?
USA TODAY couldn’t find any record of a government anywhere in the world livestreaming an execution. The Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that provides data and analysis on capital punishment issues, also couldn’t find one.
“We have no record of any execution being livestreamed,” the center’s executive director, Robin Maher, told USA TODAY.
Some foreign governments conduct public executions, but not the types of governments the U.S. typically associates itself with.
The Iranian government, against which Trump launched a war in late February, is one such regime.
In July, Iran’s government publicly executed two men who participated in mass protests against it in January. The men were sentenced to death “following a grossly unfair mass trial” that involved dozens of defendants, according to Amnesty International. The mass trial dealt with the killing of four police agents during the protests.
The North Korean government, another authoritarian regime, also conducts public executions, according to individuals interviewed by Amnesty International. They described public executions of people accused of distributing or watching foreign media. Schools sometimes systematically forced students to attend the executions, the interview subjects said.
Some critics of the announcement highlighted the connection to authoritarian governments.
“(A public execution is) the kind of thing Iran and the Taliban do,” Sen. Mark Kelly, D–Arizona, posted on social media. “Is this who we want to be associated with?”
Contributing: Fernando Cervantes Jr., Amanda Lee Myers and James Powel – USA TODAY
Leave a Reply