"🚨 POLITICAL SHOCKER! — TRUMP ORDERS FIRST U.S. MILITARY EXECUTION BY FIRING SQUAD SINCE 1945!"
For more than six decades, the U.S. military has carried out no executions. Now, that is about to change. Donald Trump has approved the death sentence of former U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan — and he is set to face a firing squad.
Trump made his position on the death penalty clear from the moment he returned to the White House.
On his first day back in office, he signed an executive order directing the Justice Department to pursue capital punishment more aggressively, following the Biden administration’s pause on federal executions.
Federal executions had also been halted during Barack Obama’s presidency. While in office, Obama commuted the death sentence of military prisoner Dwight Loving to life in prison without parole. Loving had been convicted of murdering two soldiers in 1988.
Now, an internal planning document reportedly instructs Army officials to prepare for possible executions if President Trump approves the death sentences of the four prisoners currently on military death row. The U.S. military has not carried out an execution in more than 80 years.
The last was in 1961, when Army Pvt. John Bennett was put to death after being convicted of raping and attempting to murder an 11-year-old girl in Austria. The Army’s own legal journal confirmed in May 2026 that Bennett remains the most recent U.S. service member to be executed.
Army spokesperson Cynthia Smith previously told ABC News that preparations for a possible execution are part of the military’s routine contingency planning.
“Exercises regarding this operation have been conducted regularly for the past 20 years. These drills are a standard component of our continued planning and preparation if the president approves a death sentence,” Smith said.
Former U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan on death row after Fort Hood shooting
According to the Army’s May 2026 legal review, four prisoners are currently on death row within the U.S. military justice system: Ronald Gray, Hasan Akbar, Timothy Hennis and Nidal Hasan.
Hasan was convicted for the 2009 Fort Hood shooting in Texas, one of the deadliest attacks ever carried out on a U.S. military base. Thirteen people were killed, and 32 others were wounded in the attack.
The mass murder unfolded on 5 November 2009 and was the deadliest ever non-combat attack on an American military base.
Per KUT News, witnesses told the court in 2013 that they initially thought it was a training exercise and that paintball bullets had hit them. However, when they saw blood, they realized it was real.
UNDATED: In this undated handout photo from the website of the U.S. Government Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences downloaded on November 6, 2009, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the U.S. Army doctor named as a suspect in the shooting death of 13 people and the wounding of 31 others at Fort Hood, Texas November 5, is pictured. (Photo by U.S. Government Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences via Getty Images)
“There was no movement. There was no sound. So I yelled out, ‘Is everybody ‘OK?’ I started hearing, ‘Help me. I’m bleeding. I’ve been shot. Help me.'” Sgt 1st Class Maria Guerra said, per NBC, adding that she alleged she heard a woman cry out: “Please don’t, please don’t, my baby, my baby.”
Three other former military members on death row
The Army’s legal journal says Hasan was convicted by a general court-martial in 2013 and sentenced to death. Earlier in September, War Secretary Pete Hegseth said in September that he is seeking the death penalty for Hasan and that he is “100 percent commited to ensuring the death penatly is carried out” for him.
Another man awaiting execution on military death row is former Army Specialist Ronald Gray, who served as a cook with the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Gray was convicted in 1988 of premeditated murder, attempted murder, and three counts of rape.
President George W. Bush approved Gray’s execution in July 2008, with his execution originally scheduled for December that year. However, a federal judge later put the execution on hold. That stay was eventually lifted in 2016.
Gray is now the only prisoner on military death row whose execution has previously received presidential approval.
Trump orders first U.S military execution by firing squad since 1945
Also facing the death penalty is former Master Sgt. Timothy Hennis, who was convicted of raping and killing a woman and murdering her two young daughters.
The fourth prisoner is former Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar, who was convicted of killing two officers and attempting to murder 16 others during a 2003 attack. He was sentenced to death by a general court-martial in 2005.
WASHINGTON, DC – MARCH 29: President Donald Trump waves at the press as he walks on the South Lawn of the White House on March 29, 2026 in Washington, DC. The President spend the weekend in Florida. (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)
The fate of all four men has remained uncertain. But now, a development has taken place regarding former U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan.
According to a statement from the Pentagon, President Donald Trump has approved that Nidal Malik Hasan will face death by firing squad.
In a statement, Sean Parnell, spokesperson for Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, said the president personally approved the decision to use the firing squad.
“Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has recommended – and President Donald J. Trump has approved – death by U.S. Army firing squad for convicted terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan, the jihadist who opened fire on unarmed American soldiers at Fort Hood in 2009,” Parnell wrote on X.
“Judgment Day”
Army Secretary Adam R. Telle will decide when and where the execution will take place.
“He killed 13 people and wounded 32 others while shouting “Allahu Akbar” during the attack,” Parnell added. “Judgment Day for Hasan has finally come.”
Whether the others will ultimately face execution or spend the rest of their lives behind bars remains to be seen.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
