Pentagon seeks Trump approval for first U.S. military execution in more than six decades over Fort Hood attack

The Pentagon is preparing to seek presidential approval to execute Nidal Hasan, the former Army major convicted of carrying out the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, a move that would mark the first U.S. military execution in more than six decades.

Hasan was found guilty in 2013 of killing 13 people and wounding 32 others inside the Soldier Readiness Center as service members prepared to deploy. He has been housed on death row at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, since the trial. In the years since, Hasan’s case has been the subject of appeals and stalled actions, with critics arguing that the military’s earlier designation of the attack as workplace violence obscured its ideological and terrorist dimensions. A key legal milestone occurred in April 2025, when Hasan’s final challenge was rejected, clearing the path for a potential execution.

The Army secretary has already recommended carrying out the sentence, and the Defense Department is pushing forward with the request to obtain presidential authorization. The move has been framed by supporters as delivering justice for the victims and survivors, who have long sought a full and final resolution to the case. Pete Hegseth, who has served as a senior defense adviser and commentator, told Fox News Digital that he was 100% committed to ensuring the death penalty is carried out for Hasan. He stated that the victims and survivors deserved justice without delays, a sentiment echoed by some lawmakers and defense officials who have pressed for a resolute resolution to the proceedings.

Hasan’s backstory has been the subject of extensive public discussion. Born in Arlington, Virginia, in 1970 to Palestinian immigrant parents, he served nearly 20 years in the Army and later became an Army psychiatrist. By 2009, Hasan had expressed opposition to U.S. military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and, according to some accounts, had shown mounting radical views that critics say informed his actions that day.

The potential execution is not only a legal matter but also a political and ethical touchstone within U.S. politics. Hasan’s case has drawn criticism from victims’ families, lawmakers, and national security experts who argued that designating the attack as workplace violence minimized the extremist motive and impeded a full accounting of why the assault occurred. The plan to pursue capital punishment under military jurisdiction highlights the ongoing debate over how the U.S. military handles the most severe punishment within its own system.

If the decision moves forward, it would mark the first time a person executed under the military justice system since the 1950s or 1960s, depending on how the timing and legal processes align with federal and military procedures. The process would require the approval of the President, confirmation by military and civilian authorities, and the resolution of any remaining administrative steps required to carry out a death sentence under military law. Hasan’s case has thus become a focal point for discussions about the reach of military justice, due process, and the balance between accountability and national security.

The Fort Hood shooting occurred on November 5, 2009, in the Soldier Readiness Center, a facility used to prepare troops for deployment. Hasan, armed with a semi-automatic pistol, opened fire on fellow service members, killing 13 and wounding 32. He later acknowledged the shooting and said it was intended to defend what he described as the “Islamic Empire” from U.S. military actions. In the immediate aftermath, questions were raised about whether the attack represented terrorism or workplace violence, a distinction that influenced how the case was prosecuted and later appealed. The military-convicted Hasan and sentenced him to death in 2013, setting the stage for decades of legal contention over the sentence.

The Pentagon’s renewed push comes amid broader debates about the role of the death penalty in military justice. Hasan is one of only a small number of prisoners under military capital punishment, which has faced scrutiny and calls for reform from various political and legal perspectives. Supporters say the death penalty serves as a proportionate response to mass murder within the ranks, while critics contend that the military system should adhere to standards that align with civilian capital punishment debates, and that battles over jurisdiction and procedure complicate timely justice for victims’ families.

The timeline now centers on whether President Trump will authorize the execution, a decision that would set a historical precedent for the armed forces. If approved, the execution would be carried out at a U.S. military facility under the terms of military law, following the lengthy process of court-martial, appeals, and post-conviction review. The involvement of civilian leadership in approving such sentences underscores the enduring tension between military autonomy and civilian oversight in matters of life and death.

The voices surrounding Hasan’s case reflect a spectrum of positions. Victims and their families have consistently pressed for a final resolution, while some lawmakers and legal scholars have urged caution, contending that the case warrants full due process and careful consideration of the legal standards governing military capital punishment. The next steps will hinge on the administrative posture within the Department of Defense, the readiness of the President to sign off on the execution order, and any legal challenges that may arise in the process of enforcing a military death sentence.

[[IMAGE: Fort Hood image]]

In the broader arc of U.S. politics, the case intersects with discussions about executive power, military justice, and how the country memorializes acts of mass violence within the armed forces. The outcome of the proposed plan could influence future considerations of capital punishment within military law, as well as the messaging surrounding how the government responds to acts of terrorism carried out by service members. The administration and the Defense Department have emphasized that any decision will proceed through the appropriate legal channels and reflect the values and standards governing the U.S. military and its personnel.

Hasan remains at the center of a uniquely polarizing set of questions about punishment, deterrence, and the accountability of military institutions in the face of domestic extremist violence. The legal and political processes surrounding this case will continue to unfold in the coming months, with the administration and lawmakers watching closely how the military justice system balances its duty to serve justice with the expectations of victims, service members, and the American public.

The story continues to evolve as the Pentagon seeks formal authorization from the President, signaling a potential closing chapter to a mass-casualty attack that deeply scarred Fort Hood and reverberated through the national security landscape. The ultimate decision will depend on a confluence of legal rulings, executive approval, and the governance of capital punishment within the U.S. military framework.