Trump Orders Firing Squad Execution of Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Hasan

President Donald Trump has directed the U.S. military to execute Nidal Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist convicted in the 2009 Fort Hood mass shooting, by firing squad. The decision, confirmed by Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell in a statement posted Monday on X, marks a dramatic and rare step in American military justice.

Hasan, a U.S. citizen of Palestinian descent, was sentenced to death in August 2013 after a military jury convicted him on 45 counts of premeditated murder and attempted murder. He carried out the attack on November 5, 2009, opening fire with a handgun inside a medical processing facility at the Texas military base. The assault killed 12 unarmed active-duty soldiers and one retired serviceman, and left 32 others wounded. Hasan was shot by responding police at the scene and has since been partially paralyzed.

If the execution proceeds, Hasan would become the first U.S. soldier put to death by the military in more than six decades. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, the last military execution took place in 1961 and was carried out by hanging. The center also notes that the last known use of a firing squad by the U.S. military occurred in November 1945, when an execution was conducted "by musketry."

The order follows a recommendation from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to Parnell. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, only the president can approve a military execution. The Army secretary will determine the time and location of the execution, Parnell said. In his statement, Parnell declared, "Judgement day for Hasan has finally come."

The Trump administration added death by firing squad as an approved method of federal execution in April 2026, alongside gas asphyxiation and electrocution. The move expanded the range of execution methods available to the federal government and signaled a broader push by the administration to prioritize capital punishment. The decision to employ a firing squad in Hasan's case reflects that policy shift.

Hasan's motive has been well documented. During his court-martial, he stated that the shooting was intended to stop soldiers from deploying to Afghanistan, where he believed they would kill fellow Muslims. The attack occurred just weeks before Hasan himself was scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan. He made almost no effort to defend himself during the trial, and at one point even encouraged the death penalty. His trial and sentencing drew national and international attention, raising questions about radicalization within the military and the adequacy of security protocols on domestic bases.

The case also sparked a prolonged debate over terminology. The Department of Defense initially classified the shooting as "workplace violence" rather than an act of terrorism, a designation that frustrated victims' families and some lawmakers. That classification was later revised, and the incident is now widely recognized as a terror attack. The attack remains one of the deadliest mass shootings ever to occur on a U.S. military installation.

The rarity of military executions makes Hasan's case particularly significant. Since 1961, no member of the U.S. armed forces has been executed, despite a number of service members sitting on death row. The military justice system has its own appellate process, and executions require final approval from the president. Legal challenges and lengthy appeals often delay or prevent sentences from being carried out. It remains unclear whether Hasan's defense team will pursue further legal avenues, but the case could face additional court scrutiny before any execution date is set.

The use of a firing squad has its own controversial history. While rarely employed in modern American executions, the method has been chosen by some death row inmates as an alternative to lethal injection, which has faced scrutiny over botched executions and drug shortages. The Trump administration's decision to authorize firing squads at the federal level has drawn criticism from death penalty opponents, who argue that such methods are archaic and constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Supporters counter that the method is swift and ensures that death sentences are carried out.

Hasan's execution would also raise broader questions about military justice and the death penalty. Military executions are governed by a separate legal framework from civilian executions, and the president's role in approving them is unique. The last military execution in 1961 was carried out under different legal and political circumstances. The intervening decades have seen shifts in public opinion on capital punishment, with several states abolishing the death penalty and growing concerns about racial and religious bias in its application.

For the victims' families, the order may bring a measure of closure after more than a decade of waiting. Some families have long expressed frustration with the slow pace of the appeals process. Others have voiced opposition to the death penalty on moral or religious grounds, even in a case as grave as this one. The announcement is likely to renew public debate over capital punishment, military justice, and the appropriate response to acts of mass violence.

The Pentagon has not yet announced a date or location for the execution. Further legal proceedings, including mandatory appeals, could still delay or halt the process. Hasan remains in custody at a military prison. If the order is carried out, it would mark the first military execution since 1961, ending a period of more than 60 years without one and setting a precedent for how the United States handles capital cases within its armed forces.