Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin defended the Trump administration’s proposal to livestream the execution of a convicted mass murderer Sunday, brushing aside concerns that the broadcast could turn him into a martyr, something the editorial board of the “New York Post” argued might result from a public viewing.
The proposal calls for publicly broadcasting the execution of Nidal Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist convicted of killing 13 people in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting.
When CBS’ “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan asked whether broadcasting Hasan’s execution could encourage radicalization by turning him into a martyr, Mullin offered a blunt response: “No one has to watch it.”
“I don’t see an elevated risk at this point at all because of this,” Mullin said, arguing that the execution would demonstrate the consequences of attacking Americans.
“I give absolutely zero thought to the way that this man dies,” he added.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Thursday that Hasan would be executed by firing squad Dec. 3, with the proceedings livestreamed to the public. The execution would be the first carried out by the U.S. military since 1961.
Secretary Hegseth was asked about the execution of Nidal Hasan:
“No-brainer—execution by firing squad…
Of course we’re doing it at Fort Hood. We’re going to do it at 1 o’clock—which is when he did it. It’s going to be soldiers with rifles executing the firing squad.”
The proposal has drawn objections from lawmakers in both parties. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, urged the Pentagon to reverse what she called a “gruesome decision,” warning that the broadcast could provide Hasan with the notoriety and martyrdom he seeks.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., also condemned the proposal, saying public executions belong to oppressive dictatorships, not the United States. Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., said he supports Hasan’s death sentence but opposes broadcasting it.
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., warned that livestreaming the execution could provide material for terrorist recruitment.
Others have defended the proposal. Robert Jeffress, the pastor of First Baptist Dallas and a longtime Trump ally, argued that public executions demonstrate the sanctity of human life. Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., also expressed support.
Vice President JD Vance has questioned whether the livestream will actually happen, but won’t watch it if it does. And President Donald Trump said Saturday that he would ultimately decide.
The controversy comes less than two weeks after Tennessee’s failed attempt to execute Christa Pike, who survived two doses of lethal injection drugs Sept. 30. Pike later regained consciousness, and her attorneys have sought to preserve evidence from the botched procedure.
The 50-year-old, who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1995 murder of 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer, survived a severely botched execution by lethal injection on Wednesday. The drugs meant to kill her did not do their job, and she is now in critical condition, intubated, unconscious and on a ventilator in a Nashville-area hospital. According to her lawyer, Pike’s prognosis is unclear, as is the question of whether she will suffer a serious brain injury and loss of function.
Amid questions and a media storm, Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee ordered a third-party review and paused executions for the remainder of the year. On Saturday he announced that Frank Strada, the head of the state’s prison system, would be stepping down.
Meanwhile, politicians like Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who is currently running for Tennessee governor, promised that if she is elected and Pike survives, she would try again to execute her — by other means, if necessary. “While there should be a thorough review of what happened and why the process failed,” Blackburn wrote on X, “the answer is simple: bring back the electric chair and deliver justice for these victims. As your governor, I will do just that.”
Not to be outdone, Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told NewsNation that he would “Prop her up and bring her to a firing squad.”
Such heartless statements should not distract us from the fact that what happened to Pike might have been prevented had the state of Tennessee paid attention to repeated warnings: that her small veins and history of a blood disorder would make lethal injection a cruel procedure.
Pike’s failed execution also highlights another need. If death penalty states are going to continue to use lethal injections, they should be required to have competent medical professionals on hand to help carry them out. Doctors, good doctors, are needed to help make sure that the process goes as smoothly as possible — and that the condemned person does not suffer needlessly.
In Pike’s case, that did not happen.
The New York Times reported that “The execution team went through at least seven needles trying to find a vein suitable for delivering doses of a lethal drug [and Pike] was left with blistering and burning around the intravenous insertion sites that the execution team ultimately used to deliver the drug.”
According to some outside medical experts, she likely “survived the procedure because the drug, pentobarbital, probably poured into tissue surrounding the insertion sites instead of entering her bloodstream.” If accurate, this apparently happened because the intravenous lines needed to carry the lethal drugs were not placed correctly.
The people tasked with the job of finding a usable vein and securing an IV are not phlebotomists with specialized training or nurses. And in states like Tennessee, which does not carry out many lethal injection executions, members of the execution team do not have the chance to perfect their skill by using it a lot.
Pike’s case was not an isolated event. Such problems have occurred many other times, though generally they have not prevented executions from proceeding. The people tasked with the job of finding a usable vein and securing an IV are not phlebotomists with specialized training or nurses. And in states like Tennessee, which does not carry out many lethal injection executions, members of the execution team do not have the chance to perfect their skill by using it a lot.
As Corinna Barrett Lain, a death penalty expert and professor at the University of Richmond School of Law told CNN, lethal injection is “a highly delicate, error-prone procedure that is done by people who are not trained . . . It’s a recipe for disaster from the start.”
In Pike’s case, a doctor was present — but he had a checkered history with executions. Dr. Mark Fowler was reportedly part of yet another bungled execution in Tennessee only months ago, when attempts to establish an IV line in 57-year-old Tony Carruthers, who was convicted of being involved in a triple murder in Memphis in 1994, failed repeatedly. (Following the attempted execution, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee gave Carruthers a one-year temporary reprieve.) In the wake of the Carruthers debacle, substantial questions were raised about Fowler’s ethics and competence, but they did not deter Tennessee from calling on him again.
Tennessee is one of 17 states with laws requiring doctors to play some role in the execution process. In those states, “Doctors have signed death warrants, rendered inmates competent, provided intravenous access, monitored vital signs, administered lethal injections and declared death.”
But at the same time, since the dawn of the lethal injection era, the American Medical Association has held that it is a violation of medical ethics for doctors to participate in executions: “Physician participation in execution is defined as actions that fall into one or more of the following categories: Would directly cause the death of the condemned. Would assist, supervise, or contribute to the ability of another individual to directly cause the death of the condemned.”
According to AMA guidelines, doctors involved in lethal injections cannot choose injection sites, start IV lines to administer the lethal medicine or be involved in prescribing, preparing, administering, or supervising injection drugs or their doses or types.” Other professional associations, including the American Nursing Association and the American Society of Anesthesiologists, have established similar regulations.
The result is that states have been forced to turn to unlicensed medical personnel. Hundreds of them have played a role in executions — but they have done so in the shadows.
That is not good enough when someone’s life is being extinguished. As is the case with physician assistance in dying, the choice is between professional purity and the need for expertise in making sure the end of life will be as peaceful as possible.
In the wake of Carruthers’ botched execution, a group of more than 40 doctors and nurses came down on the side of purity. They sent a letter to Lee asking him to change the state’s execution process so that medical professionals no longer would have to be involved. “[T]he health care professionals who agree to take part in Tennessee’s executions are those willing to set aside their professional ethics,” they wrote. “The problems that we have seen, such as in Mr. Carruthers’s case, are the predictable result of working with such unscrupulous actors.”
But here’s a thought: Maybe the problem is not with Tennessee law but instead with the ethical standards that keep reputable medical professionals from participating in executions.
The doctors treating Pike know that “[i]f she recovers, Tennessee might try to kill her again [and] that their job is to do the best they can for the patient in front of them and not to think about that.’”
There will be time to do so if the savage cries of politicians like Blackburn and Burchett are heard. But with Pike currently in critical condition from a cruel, mangled procedure, it’s unclear if and when that might happen. But if it does, doctors should do their part to see to it that she is treated with as much compassion in the death chamber as she is in the hospital.
Login
