Livestreaming Nidal Hasan replaces the rule of law with an arena

By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta · October 12, 2026

The Trump administration's plan to livestream the execution of Nidal Hasan replaces the discipline of military justice with political theater, risking a procedural disaster before a global audience.

The Trump administration is wrong. It is not wrong for seeking the death penalty for a man who murdered 13 people. It is wrong for attempting to turn a judicial act into a digital spectacle. By planning to livestream the execution of Nidal Hasan, the administration replaces the rule of law with the rules of the arena. Justice is a matter of record and result. It is not a content strategy for a streaming platform.

The spectacle of the volley

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the plan to broadcast the execution on Real America's Voice. DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin defended the move on CBS. Mullin stated he gives "absolutely zero thought" to how Hasan dies. This is a dangerous posture for a cabinet officer. In the law, the "how" is the only thing that protects the state from becoming the thing it punishes.

The process here is a ghost. ABC News reports that the Army's last written procedures for a firing squad date to 1959. Those rules require the commanding officer to shoot the prisoner in the head at point-blank range if the initial volley fails. To livestream such a high-risk procedure is to invite a global audience to witness a potential botch.

The Execution of military prisoners shares a mechanism with this story. Both involve the exercise of military jurisdiction to carry out a death sentence, marking the end of a long hiatus in the application of the military death penalty. The military has not executed anyone since 1961. It has not used a firing squad since 1945. To return to a mid-century method without updated protocols is a procedural failure.

Secretary Mullin's appetite for this theater is not new. Records show he once attempted to enter Afghanistan by helicopter in 2021 to rescue a family. He prefers the cinematic to the administrative. But the state is not a movie set. When the government treats execution as a deterrent for an audience, it ceases to be a court and becomes a carnival.

The propaganda trap

The administration argues that a public execution sets an example. This is a fallacy. Most terrorists do not fear death; they seek it. John Cohen, a former Homeland Security official, noted that martyrdom is often the objective. A livestream does not deter a radical; it provides him a blueprint for glory.

Senator Mark Warner warned that this could hand terrorist groups a propaganda victory. Joe Kent added that it would be a recruiting tool. They are correct. The state loses control of the narrative the moment it hits the web.

The European Union has already stepped in. France 24 reports that the EU warned platforms against streaming the event under the Digital Services Act. This creates a regulatory collision. The administration calls the act "foreign censorship." In reality, it is a clash between American theater and European content law.

Livestreaming Hasan gives the prisoner the notoriety Senator Lisa Murkowski rightly fears.

The cost of the shortcut

The administration is taking a shortcut to satisfaction. They want the feeling of strength without the discipline of process. The execution of Timothy McVeigh in 2001 used a closed-circuit telecast for victims' families. That was a controlled, private act of closure. A public livestream is a public act of aggression.

When the executive branch pushes for speed and spectacle, it creates liabilities. A botched firing squad on a global stream would be a stain on the military's honor.

The Army is now considering masks to protect the soldiers' identities. This is a tacit admission of the risk. The state is trying to hide the faces of its agents while broadcasting the death of its prisoner. This is not transparency. It is a curated execution.

The administration's logic is a tool that can be turned against it. If the standard for justice is "making an example" through public broadcast, then any future administration can apply that same tool to any prisoner they find politically useful. A rule that only works while your people hold power was never a rule.

The administration will likely reverse course or find the stream geoblocked by platforms fearing EU fines. They may substitute a closed-circuit feed for families, mirroring the McVeigh precedent. If they do not, they risk a procedural disaster. The Army's 1959 guidance is not a manual for the digital age. A point-blank pistol shot to the head, broadcast in high definition, is not justice. It is a crime against the dignity of the court.

Livestreaming Nidal Hasan replaces the rule of law with an arena

The spectacle of the volley

The propaganda trap

The cost of the shortcut

Sources