Livestreaming an execution: The barbaric spectacle America once condemned is now its own

When the news first broke that the US authorities had decided to carry out a public execution on 3 December, the first one since World War 2, many people found it hard to believe. Surely the US, the defender of human rights worldwide, cannot carry out something straight out of a mediaeval ruler's playbook. But sadly, it is real. 

For decades, American political discourse, particularly within conservative circles, has relied on warning the public against the encroachment of authoritarian penal practices and religious extremism. Even today, the rallying cry for the far-right is the fear of 'Shariah'. And for that, the examples cited are regimes like those of Taliban-governed Afghanistan and Iran. 

Yet the recent decision by the Pentagon to livestream the execution of the Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan by firing squad mirrors exactly Afghanistan or Iran's model.

Instead of upholding modern standards of judicial restraint, Washington is choosing to adopt the exact penal methods it historically condemned. The plan to broadcast a military execution live to a global audience marks a return to public state violence not seen in the US for nearly a century. In seeking to project strength, the executive branch is embracing a form of punitive theatre that could erode America's standing as a global defender of human rights.

The precedent and the rationale

The case against Nidal Malik Hasan is undisputed in its severity. In November 2009, Hasan, a 56-year-old former Army psychiatrist, opened fire at a medical processing facility in Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 people—including a pregnant soldier—and wounding 32 others. Convicted by a military court-martial in 2013 and sentenced to death, Hasan has spent over a decade on death row at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

The controversy lies not in his conviction but in the decision to turn his death into a public broadcast. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that Hasan's execution on 3 December 2026, would be broadcast live, framing the spectacle as a necessary instrument of public deterrence. Hegseth explicitly argued that broadcasting the killing is required so that people understand there are serious consequences for treason and terror.

President Donald Trump personally confirmed his approval of the plan, celebrating the return to harsh historical measures. If carried out, the event will mark the first US military execution by firing squad since 1945, the first military execution of any kind since 1961, and the first public execution in the country since the late 1930s.

Borrowing the authoritarian playbook

The decision to broadcast state executions aligns the US with a remarkably small and isolated group of nations. According to global documentation from Amnesty International, out of thousands of judicial executions conducted worldwide in 2025, only 17 were carried out publicly—11 in Iran and six in Taliban-run Afghanistan.

By converting an execution into public media content, the US adopts the operational playbook of authoritarian regimes. Public executions in states governed by strict, non-secular penal codes serve primarily to display unchecked state authority over the individual. They rely on the public spectacle of physical destruction as a mechanism of social control.

By converting an execution into public media content, the US adopts the operational playbook of authoritarian regimes. Public executions in states governed by strict, non-secular penal codes serve primarily to display unchecked state authority over the individual. They rely on the public spectacle of physical destruction as a mechanism of social control.

The irony of American leadership adopting these methods is not lost on domestic or international observers. Political figures across the spectrum have noted that the administration is recreating the very spectacles of violence it routinely uses to criticise hostile foreign governments.

A rare bipartisan backlash

The announcement has provoked a rare and intense convergence of opposition from religious authorities, human rights bodies, and politicians across both major American parties. Pope Leo XIV, marking World Day Against the Death Penalty, publicly declared capital punishment inadmissible, while Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin described the plan to turn human death into a public spectacle as truly incomprehensible and unacceptable.

Within the US, Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, warned that a public broadcast represents a barbaric promotion of a culture of death that undermines the moral fabric of the nation. Even Vice President JD Vance expressed reluctance, stating publicly that he would not watch the broadcast if it occurred.

Bipartisan pushback in Congress was equally direct. Republican Senator Thom Tillis called the livestream beyond disgusting, explicitly noting that public executions are what oppressive dictatorships like Iran and Afghanistan do. Republican Representative Austin Scott observed that livestreaming executions is what jihadists do, arguing that America is better than that. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton criticised the plan as an unnecessary display designed merely to court political favour.

Democratic leaders echoed these concerns. Senator Chris Murphy described the concept as mediaeval and reminiscent of execution broadcasts by ISIS, while Representative Yassamin Ansari emphasised that public executions are characteristic of brutal dictatorships. Internationally, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights warned that broadcasting the killing would breach the absolute prohibition against torture.

When projecting strength becomes extremism

The primary justification offered by the Pentagon—that publicising the physical destruction of a killer deters future violence—finds little support among legal specialists and counterterrorism experts. Experience demonstrates that ideologically driven perpetrators are not deterred by the prospect of violent death; many actively seek public martyrdom to legitimise their cause.

Counterterrorism analysts warn that broadcasting Hasan's death will achieve the opposite of its intended goal. Rather than projecting strength, a televised execution provides free propaganda for extremist organisations seeking to portray the US as a brutal empire. Staging a public death reinforces the exact narrative Hasan advanced during his trial—that the American state is inherently violent.

Furthermore, turning state punishment into mass media entertainment risks desensitising the public while damaging national dignity. When a democratic state relies on the theatrical display of violence to project authority, it signals an inability to uphold justice through standard legal institutions. 

Ultimately, by adopting the punitive methods of the regimes it opposes, Washington weakens its global moral authority and degrades the very principles of human dignity it claims to uphold.