Trump turns the execution of Nidal Hasan into political theater

By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta · October 6, 2026

By approving a firing squad for Nidal Hasan, President Trump replaces the steady process of military law with a calculated performance of televised retribution.

The Trump administration is wrong to treat the execution of Nidal Hasan as a public spectacle. While the legal requirements for the death penalty have been met, the manner of its application is a calculated performance. President Donald Trump has approved the execution of Hasan by U.S. Army firing squad, according to the Pentagon. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recommended the move. Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell announced the decision on X, stating that "Judgement day for Hasan has finally come." When the executive branch replaces the language of the law with the language of the apocalypse, it stops serving the law and starts serving a brand.

The gap between the record and the rhetoric

To understand the process, one must look at the record before the press release. Nidal Hasan was an Army major and psychiatrist. On November 5, 2009, he killed people and injured others at Fort Hood, Texas. This was the deadliest non-combat attack on an American military base, as reported by the BBC. In 2013, a military jury convicted Hasan of premeditated murder and attempted premeditated murder. The jury unanimously recommended the death sentence.

The process since then has been a slow walk through the appellate system. Hasan represented himself at trial and sought the death penalty. The U.S. Supreme Court denied his final petition on March 31, 2025. Under military law, a person sentenced to death cannot be executed without presidential approval. This is the final procedural gate.

However, the administration is now rewriting the narrative of the conviction. Sean Parnell called Hasan a "convicted terrorist" in his announcement. The Guardian reports that Hasan is the first soldier to be executed by the military in more than 60 years. Yet, the record shows the Army chose not to charge Hasan with terrorism during his 2013 court-martial. They relied on the Uniform Code of Military Justice provisions for premeditated murder to ensure a conviction. To call him a "convicted terrorist" now is a factual error. It is a shortcut taken for political effect.

The choice of the firing squad

The decision to use a firing squad is not a procedural necessity. It is a choice of aesthetics. The federal government typically uses lethal injection for civilian cases. The Justice Department recently suggested other methods, including lethal gas and electrocution. By selecting the firing squad, the administration is not merely executing a sentence. It is signaling a preference for a more visceral form of violence.

The strongest case for this method is that it provides the "justice" the victims deserve. From this view, the method is a fitting response to a man who killed unarmed soldiers. But the law does not operate on a theory of fittingness. It operates on a theory of consistency. If the method of execution is chosen to satisfy a desire for vengeance, the process becomes a weapon.

The mechanism of executive finality

The current situation shares a mechanism with the execution of John Bennett. In 1961, Private Bennett was the last person executed after a court-martial. He was hanged at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. In both cases, the process ended with the president's refusal to grant clemency. The mechanism is the same: the exercise of presidential power to finalize a death sentence after a lengthy appellate process.

But the context has shifted. In 1961, the execution was the end of a legal sequence. In 2026, the execution is being used as a political opening. The administration is using the 2009 Fort Hood shooting to validate a broader agenda of lethal force. When the state uses the death penalty to send a message, it stops being about the crime and starts being about the audience.

The administration is ignoring the risk that this theater will invite judicial interference. The choice of a firing squad—a method not used by the military in more than 60 years—opens the door for Eighth Amendment challenges. Hasan's defense may argue that this is an "unusual punishment" under the current legal landscape. This will likely result in a federal habeas corpus petition. Such a move would delay the very "justice" Secretary Hegseth claims to accelerate.

The Secretary of the Army will likely designate Fort Leavenworth as the site for the execution. This will bring the process back to the same ground where John Bennett died. But the goal here is not the quiet administration of a sentence. It is the loud assertion of power.

Legitimacy is a capital stock that spends fast and refills slowly. By treating the military justice system as a stage for "Judgement day," the administration is spending that stock. They are trading the boring, predictable machinery of the law for a moment of televised retribution. The result will not be more justice, but a more fragile system. The law is strongest when it is unhurried and exact. It is weakest when it tries to be a show.

Trump turns the execution of Nidal Hasan into political theater

The gap between the record and the rhetoric

The choice of the firing squad

The mechanism of executive finality

Sources