After 60 Years, U.S. Military Execution Nears

Lloyd Austin speaking at a podium in front of a Pentagon emblem — Photo: Shutterstock

For the first time in more than 60 years, the U.S. military is preparing to carry out an execution — by firing squad — after President Trump approved the method for Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan.

Story Highlights

Pentagon says President Trump approved a firing squad execution for Nidal Hasan.
Hasan was convicted for killing 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009.
This would be the first U.S. military execution in over six decades.
The decision comes as states struggle with lethal injection and revisit older methods.

What The Pentagon Announced

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recommended, and President Trump approved, death by U.S. Army firing squad for Nidal Malik Hasan, who carried out the 2009 Fort Hood shooting that killed 13 people. Multiple outlets reported the same language, tying the choice of method and the approval directly to the Pentagon, Hegseth, and the President. Reports framed the move as a historic step because the military has not executed a prisoner in decades.

Hasan’s death sentence stems from a court-martial conviction. The new reporting focuses on how the sentence will be carried out, not the verdict itself. Outlets cited the Pentagon’s statement to explain why this case stands out: it would mark a return to a method with deep military roots and rare modern use. One brief caveat from the reports is that they do not include the full underlying order or procedural memo authorizing the method change.

Why This Decision Matters Now

The choice of firing squad connects to a broader trend. States and agencies have faced legal fights and supply problems with lethal injection drugs. Some have looked at other methods to avoid botched executions and delays. Analysts note that firing squads have been used only a handful of times in the modern era, making up less than one percent of executions since the 1970s. Idaho’s recent shift to make firing squad its primary method shows how policy is moving in parts of the country.

Supporters of the firing squad argue it is fast, relies on trained personnel, and can be more certain than methods that depend on scarce drugs. Critics of capital punishment argue method changes do not fix deeper issues, like unequal justice or wrongful convictions. In this case, the focus is narrower: how the military will carry out a lawful sentence for a mass killing on a U.S. base. The Pentagon’s statement signals a return to procedures the Army has used in the distant past.

Historical Context And Precedent

Since 1976, only a small number of U.S. executions have used firing squads. Most death sentences used lethal injection, which later faced court challenges and drug shortages. Historically, the military used firing squads more than civilian systems, especially during wartime. Recent reports stress that a military execution today would be the first in more than 60 years, underscoring how rare this is in modern American life.

1: Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah all allow th firing squad for executions.

2: There are plenty of people I’d happily volunteer to execute, if it were an option (it’s usually restricted to law enforcement, which I am not).

— Moderately Conservative 🇺🇸 (@shdw_wolf7) October 2, 2026

This decision also lands in a political moment when many Americans on both left and right doubt the federal government’s ability to act clearly and fairly. Some will see decisive action after a long-delayed case. Others will worry the government is leaning on a harsh symbol instead of fixing system failures. Both views reflect a shared concern: Washington struggles to run core functions with transparency and speed. The Pentagon statement gives clarity on the method, but not yet the full process record.

What Comes Next

Next steps likely include detailed planning on location, personnel, and specific protocol, which reports have not yet laid out. Military justice rules govern how sentences are finalized and carried out, and those steps will shape timing and logistics. If agencies mirror state-level protocols, procedures could include designated shooters, medical checks, and secure facilities, as seen in some state plans. Officials will face intense public scrutiny as they move from approval to action.

Why This Resonates Beyond One Case

Americans are watching not just what punishment is used, but whether the government can carry it out lawfully, consistently, and with accountability. Conservatives often argue that clear consequences deter violence and uphold order. Liberals often warn that changing methods does not fix deeper justice concerns. Both sides agree on one thing: they want a government that follows the law and explains its actions. This case tests whether federal leaders can deliver that standard in a rare and serious moment.