Pentagon Says Fort Hood Shooter’s Execution Will Be Streamed

Published: 09 October 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The US Department of Defense has announced that the execution of Nidal Hasan, the former US Army psychiatrist convicted of killing 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas, will be livestreamed when the sentence is carried out on 3 December. The announcement has brought renewed attention to one of the deadliest attacks on a US military installation, the long legal proceedings that followed, and the controversial decision to make a military execution publicly viewable.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed the planned execution during an interview with Real America’s Voice, saying Hasan would be executed by firing squad at Fort Hood at 1pm local time on Thursday, 3 December. A Defense Department official subsequently confirmed that the execution would be livestreamed, making the planned event an unusual departure from the traditionally private procedures surrounding capital punishment in the United States.

The announcement also marks a significant development in the Trump administration’s approach to military justice and the death penalty. If carried out as scheduled, Hasan’s execution would be the first US military execution in more than six decades, reviving a method of capital punishment that has largely disappeared from federal military practice.

During the interview, Hegseth described the 2009 shooting as a radical Islamist attack carried out by a member of the military against fellow service personnel. He defended the decision to use a firing squad and said the public should be able to watch the execution to understand the consequences of such violence.

His remarks have placed the planned execution at the centre of a broader debate about punishment, public accountability, military discipline and the limits of making state executions a public spectacle. While supporters of capital punishment may view the decision as a demonstration of the seriousness with which the government treats attacks on military personnel, critics may question whether broadcasting an execution serves a legitimate public interest or risks turning a solemn legal process into a political statement.

The case dates back to 5 November 2009, when Hasan opened fire at a medical processing centre at Fort Hood, one of the largest military installations in the United States. The attack killed 13 people and wounded dozens of others, leaving families, fellow soldiers and the wider military community struggling to understand how such violence could occur inside a military base.

Hasan, who worked as an Army psychiatrist, was serving in the military when the shooting took place. His professional responsibilities had involved providing mental health services to military personnel, making the attack particularly shocking to those who viewed the military medical system as a place of support and care for soldiers preparing for service.

The shooting prompted an extensive investigation into Hasan’s activities and communications before the attack. Investigators discovered that he had exchanged 18 emails with Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric who was subsequently killed in a US drone strike. The correspondence raised questions about whether warning signs had been overlooked and whether authorities could have done more to investigate Hasan before the violence occurred.

During his court-martial, Hasan said he had acted to prevent American soldiers from deploying to Afghanistan to kill fellow Muslims. His explanation offered insight into the ideological reasoning he presented for the attack, but it did not change the legal outcome. A military jury sentenced him to death in 2013 after finding him responsible for the killings.

The investigation also exposed concerns about how intelligence and law enforcement agencies handled information related to Hasan. A review led by William Webster, a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, concluded that the bureau should have investigated Hasan’s correspondence more thoroughly. The findings contributed to continuing questions about institutional responsibility, information sharing and the ability of security agencies to identify potential threats before they become violent.

Following his conviction, Hasan was held at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas while his legal proceedings continued. His sentence remained subject to the military justice system’s review procedures and appeals, delaying the possibility of an execution for years. According to the account surrounding the latest announcement, Hasan exhausted his appeals last year, clearing a significant legal obstacle to carrying out the sentence.

President Donald Trump has now approved the execution following a recommendation from Hegseth. The decision places responsibility for the planned punishment at the highest levels of the US government and reflects the administration’s willingness to revive a practice that has not been used by the US military for generations.

However, questions have also emerged over the political language used to describe the original attack. During his interview, Hegseth criticised former president Barack Obama, claiming that Obama had described the Fort Hood shooting as “workplace violence.” The terminology has long been associated with controversy surrounding the government’s initial classification of the incident.

There is, however, no record establishing that Obama personally used the phrase. At a memorial service held days after the shooting, Obama described the victims as Americans who had been unable to escape the horrors associated with war. He called the attack a tragedy and said the perpetrator would face justice.

The distinction matters because the initial classification of the shooting had practical consequences for survivors and victims’ families. The military initially treated the incident as workplace violence rather than a terrorist attack. That classification affected eligibility for Purple Hearts and other combat-related benefits, generating frustration among people who believed the victims should have received formal recognition for their suffering.

For affected families, the controversy has extended beyond terminology. Recognition by the government can influence access to benefits, official acknowledgement and the way an event is remembered within the military community. The debate over the attack’s classification has therefore remained part of the broader discussion about how the United States responds to violence against its service members.

The planned firing squad execution also represents a return to a method of punishment rarely used in modern American military justice. The last known US military execution by firing squad took place in November 1945. The Trump administration has sought to revive the method during the president’s second term as part of its efforts to expedite capital punishment cases.

Firing squads remain legally permitted in five US states: Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah. Their availability reflects continuing differences across the country over execution methods, particularly as governments confront legal, practical and ethical questions surrounding capital punishment.

Internationally, firing squads remain in use in several jurisdictions. Amnesty International’s most recent annual review identifies Afghanistan, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Taiwan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen among the places where the method is still used. The legal framework and circumstances surrounding executions differ considerably across these jurisdictions, making direct comparisons difficult.

The decision to livestream Hasan’s execution introduces another dimension to the controversy. Public access to criminal proceedings can serve transparency and accountability, but broadcasting an execution raises distinct concerns about dignity, privacy and the treatment of death as a public event. The decision may also affect the families of the victims, who could have different views about whether the execution should be publicly broadcast.

For the military community, the case remains rooted in the devastating human consequences of the 2009 shooting. The 13 people killed were part of a community preparing for military duties or supporting those who served. Their deaths left lasting effects on relatives, colleagues and survivors, while the wounded faced the physical and emotional consequences of the attack.

The announcement has not indicated whether Hasan has made a final request or attempted to contact Trump before the scheduled execution. Asked about the possibility during the interview, Hegseth responded dismissively, saying he did not care and that officials would see Hasan on 3 December.

The date now represents a major milestone in a case that has remained in the US military justice system for nearly 17 years. Whether the execution proceeds as announced, and how the decision to livestream it is ultimately implemented, will determine the next chapter in a case that continues to raise difficult questions about justice, security, public accountability and the appropriate limits of government power.

For the families of the victims and the wider military community, the central issue remains the loss of 13 lives and the consequences of an attack that took place in a setting dedicated to military service. The planned execution may bring the legal proceedings closer to their conclusion, but it is unlikely to end the wider debate over how the United States should remember the tragedy, address the failures identified by investigators and balance punishment with the dignity owed to victims and their families.