Army sets December 3 firing-squad execution for Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan

If carried out, Hasan’s execution would be the first by the U.S. military since Private John A. Bennett was hanged on April 13, 1961, and its first firing-squad execution since Private Eddie Slovik was executed in France for desertion in 1945. Those are conditional milestones, not events already accomplished.⁠5

The Army’s October 7 announcement resolves the year and hour missing from earlier reporting. It identifies Adam Telle as acting secretary of the Army and says he directed the execution on October 6. The underlying signed order was not available for independent examination; the public announcement is the basis for the schedule.⁠8

The allocation of authority matters. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recommended carrying out the sentence, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell announced Trump’s approval, and Telle directed the execution and selected its arrangements. The Army says the president alone has authority to approve a military prisoner’s death sentence. Describing all these steps as a defense secretary’s order blurs separate decisions.⁠1⁠8

The public account became more specific as arrangements emerged. CBS News reported on October 6 that the execution was not scheduled and the Army secretary would set its time and place. NPR reported on October 7 that an order named December 3 at Fort Hood, though its quotation omitted the year. The Army’s announcement supplies 2026 and the hour. The older unscheduled account is superseded, not evidence of competing execution dates.⁠1⁠2⁠8

December 3 falls 62 elapsed calendar days after Trump’s October 2 approval. That puts the appointment just beyond the reported 60-day minimum wait. But calendar arithmetic is not an independent finding that the Army has met every legal and procedural requirement.⁠8⁠4

There is a substantive difference in how outlets described the timing rule on October 6. CBS News called it federal law requiring execution no sooner than 60 days and no later than 150 days after approval. The Hill described Army policy requiring at least 60 days and execution generally within 150 days. A hard maximum and a general window are not the same thing.⁠1⁠4

The identified regulation is Army Regulation 190–55, U.S. Army Corrections System: Procedures for Military Executions. Its available cover material says it was certified current on October 30, 2023, with specified administrative revisions but no other substantive changes. The complete operative timing provision, its triggering event and its exceptions were not established by the material available for examination. Neither outlet’s formulation can responsibly be treated here as the verified full rule.⁠17

Hasan can still seek collateral relief through habeas corpus in civilian federal court. Robin Maher, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, identified that route to NPR as a possible source of delay. A judge could stay the execution while reviewing constitutional or procedural issues. A petition is not itself a stay.⁠2⁠4

As of October 8, neither a newly filed petition nor a stay order has been established by the available reporting. That is a limit on what is verified, not proof that no filing exists. Scripps News’s prediction that proceedings would likely take years, and other accounts’ warnings of potentially indefinite delay, describe possible litigation outcomes—not an existing court timetable that cancels the Army’s December appointment.⁠3⁠1⁠4

The appellate history helps explain the distinction. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces heard argument in Hasan’s case on March 28, 2023, and issued its decision on March 4, 2024. His capital Supreme Court case, Nidal M. Hasan v. United States, No. 24-5225, was docketed on August 5, 2024. His petition was denied in March 2025, according to the petition tracker and dated National Institute of Military Justice commentary. The exact denial day is not established here; the tracker’s March 28 conference date is not a denial-order date.⁠25⁠24⁠27⁠28

The petition concerned the public-trial guarantee, structural error and the remedy for an alleged violation. Those were Hasan’s legal arguments, not findings that his rights had been violated. The Army’s statement that a “full appellate process” upheld the conviction and death sentence describes completed appellate review; it does not decide whether a future federal habeas challenge could obtain relief.⁠27⁠28⁠8

Hasan, then an Army major and psychiatrist, killed 13 people and wounded 32 at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009. The rounded “about 30” wounded in CBS’s initial approval account is less precise than the later figure of 32. His conviction is established history, not an unresolved accusation.⁠1⁠2⁠6

On August 23, 2013, a panel of 13 military officers returned a unanimous guilty verdict on 13 counts of premeditated murder and convicted Hasan on 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder. On August 28, after less than two hours of sentencing deliberations, it imposed death, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and dismissal from service. Hasan represented himself at trial and said he acted in support of the Taliban.⁠39⁠37⁠1

He has been held at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; the announced execution site is the Texas installation where he committed the killings. For survivors and victims’ families, the government’s appointment marks a consequential change after a long wait. It does not remove the government’s obligation to explain how it intends to carry out the sentence.⁠4⁠8

Associated Press reporting on October 7 said the announcement surprised an attorney who had represented Hasan in a civil case and raised concerns among military-law experts about whether the Army followed its own rules. The available account does not identify that attorney or establish that the person is Hasan’s current criminal-defense lawyer. Few details have been released about who would form the firing squad or the procedure it would use.⁠15⁠11⁠36

The Pentagon has not explained why it is proceeding now or why it selected a firing squad. Speculation connecting the decision to renewed debate over failed lethal injections is not evidence of a decision-making motive. Nor does the available operative regulatory text resolve how this method was authorized. These gaps warrant scrutiny; they do not establish a rule violation.⁠2⁠17

Initial approval reporting: CBS News⁠1; NPR’s October 7 report⁠2; Scripps News⁠3; The Hill’s later October 6 account⁠4; The Hill’s earlier account⁠5; NBC News⁠6. ABC News Australia’s execution-method interview⁠7.

Scheduling announcement and coverage: U.S. Army⁠8; Associated Press⁠9; KWTX⁠10; AP via ABC News⁠11; The Washington Post⁠12; Military.com⁠13; AP via The Independent⁠14; AP via WTOP⁠15; Task & Purpose⁠16.

Military execution rules and background: current Army Regulation 190–55⁠17; Army Lawyer article⁠18; AP via KSAT⁠19; CEEViS commentary⁠20; regulation copy hosted by the Federation of American Scientists⁠21; Wikipedia’s military capital-punishment overview⁠22.

Appellate records: government Supreme Court opposition⁠23; Supreme Court docket⁠24; military appellate opinion⁠25; Hasan’s Supreme Court petition⁠26; Supreme Court Petition Tracker⁠27; National Institute of Military Justice commentary⁠28; petition appendix⁠29; Killeen Daily Herald⁠30; San Antonio Express-News⁠31; extension application⁠32.

Additional contemporary coverage: NPR via Georgia Public Broadcasting⁠33; AP via KIRO 7⁠34; NPR’s approval report⁠35; CBC News⁠36. Historical verdict and sentencing records: Army sentencing announcement⁠37; revised appellate opinion in Supreme Court filings⁠38; CBS’s August 23, 2013 verdict report⁠39; alternate court-hosted opinion⁠40; AP’s August 28, 2013 sentencing report⁠41.