President Trump has directed the military to carry out the death sentence against former Army Maj. Nidal Hasan by firing squad, a method that has not been used by the U.S. armed forces since 1945. Hasan, convicted in 2013 for the November 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, that killed 13 people, is paralyzed from the waist down and would likely be shot while seated.
The decision, announced without public explanation, breaks with the military's standard execution protocol, which relies on lethal injection. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called the choice a "no-brainer," but critics and medical experts argue the firing squad's reputation for being quick and painless is not supported by evidence. Instead, they say, it emerged from a legal quirk that forces condemned prisoners to propose an alternative method of execution—often the firing squad—when challenging the cruelty of the state's preferred method.
Under Supreme Court precedent, prisoners who argue that an execution method violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment must also identify an available alternative that poses a significantly lower risk of severe pain. That rule, established in Glossip v. Gross (2015) and reaffirmed in Bucklew v. Precythe (2019), shifts the burden from the state to the condemned. "The state does not have to prove its method is not cruel; the prisoner has to propose a better way to be killed," noted one legal expert.
Civilian death row inmates have increasingly cited the firing squad as a supposedly more reliable option, and five states—Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah—now authorize it. But the method's track record is far from reassuring. In April 2025, South Carolina executed Mikal Mahdi by firing squad; an independent autopsy found that the bullets missed his heart and struck his liver, pancreas, and lower lung, and witnesses reported hearing him groan after being shot.
The military justice system offers no comparable avenue for Hasan to challenge his execution method. Unlike some states, the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not allow prisoners to choose how they die, and legal experts say Hasan has no practical way to bring a method-of-execution claim at all.
The case has drawn fresh attention to the broader debate over capital punishment and the role of medical professionals. Dr. Joel Zivot, an anesthesiologist who has testified as an expert witness in multiple execution challenges, described how courts have forced inmates to propose alternatives—even when doing so conflicts with their religious beliefs. In the case of Christa Pike, a Tennessee inmate and Buddhist, her lawyers resisted naming an alternative on the grounds that her faith forbids participation in killing, including her own.
Pike's own lethal injection in September 2026 went badly wrong: IV lines infiltrated, causing severe burning and blistering, and the drugs never reached her brain in sufficient concentration. She survived and remains in prison, but the botched procedure underscores the risks of lethal injection—a method that has faced growing scrutiny and legal challenges across the country.
As the Trump administration moves forward with Hasan's execution, the decision has sparked debate over whether the firing squad is truly humane or simply a politically convenient choice. The last time the U.S. military used a firing squad was in 1945, and no federal execution has been carried out by that method in the modern era. With Hasan's case now heading toward an unprecedented use of the method, the question of what constitutes a "cruel and unusual" death remains as contentious as ever.
For more on the debate over televising executions, see this Marine veteran's argument and the military archbishop's criticism. The broader conversation about capital punishment's future is also reflected in California's consideration of mass commutations.
