Trump cancels reviled plan: “Might have been a strong deterrent”

Donald Trump has abandoned one of his administration’s most controversial proposals following days of mounting criticism from political leaders, religious organizations and international human rights officials.

The decision represents a significant retreat for the White House, which had previously defended the proposal as a powerful warning to anyone contemplating an act of terrorism.

Critics, however, argued that the measure would cross a disturbing line by turning capital punishment into a public spectacle.

Now, after initially expressing strong support for the idea, the 80-year-old president has announced that the execution of convicted mass murderer Nidal Malik Hasan will no longer be broadcast live.

The execution itself will still proceed as scheduled, according to The Guardian.

Trump changes his mind

Hasan, a former US Army major, was convicted of murdering 13 people during a shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009.

His execution by firing squad is expected to mark the first military execution in the United States in more than six decades.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had previously announced plans to make the execution available for public viewing through a livestream.

But Trump confirmed on Thursday that the administration was abandoning that part of the arrangement.

Writing on Truth Social, the president acknowledged that broadcasting the execution could have served as a warning to potential attackers.

He argued that it “might have been a strong deterrent for the World to witness how America deals with Terrorists and SCUM like Hasan.”

However, Trump said he had also considered the concerns of those who opposed showing the execution.

“Many very good and well meaning people would rather not watch him die, through streaming, or through any other visual device,” he explained.

The president then confirmed the revised arrangements.

“He will die, as scheduled, by firing squad, but this event will not be streamed,” Trump wrote.

“That said, the execution may be viewed in person by the immediate families of the victims, if they so choose.”

Hasan, who was shot by law enforcement officers during the 2009 attack, is paralyzed from the waist down and uses a wheelchair.

Criticism came from both sides of Washington

The proposed broadcast had generated unusually broad opposition, including from members of Trump’s own Republican Party.

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska publicly questioned why the government would consider televising an execution.

She argued that there was “no need to livestream any execution, including this one.”

Murkowski added that she “would expect this from terrorists and dictators, but not here in America.”

Fellow Republican Rob Bresnahan of Pennsylvania also criticized the proposal, emphasizing that the victims and their families should remain the priority.

“An execution shouldn’t be a live-streamed spectacle,” he wrote.

“The focus should be on justice for the victims and their families, not turning an execution into entertainment.”

He added that the families’ suffering deserved respect rather than a public display.

Democratic Representative Yassamin Ansari, the first Iranian American Democrat elected to Congress, was considerably more direct.

“In Trump’s America, we’re doing public executions now. WTF,” she wrote on social media.

Ansari compared the proposal to practices associated with authoritarian governments in Iran and Afghanistan, accusing the administration of embracing increasingly authoritarian methods.

The United Nations raised serious concerns

Opposition to the planned livestream extended well beyond Capitol Hill.

The United Nations human rights office warned that broadcasting the killing would constitute a public execution and could breach the absolute prohibition against torture.

The president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops also condemned the proposal.

Although acknowledging the severity of Hasan’s crimes, the organization described the planned broadcast as a “barbaric promotion of a culture of death.”

The bishops argued that making an execution publicly available would damage the country’s moral standing rather than deliver meaningful justice.

Their intervention added to pressure on an administration already facing growing questions about the purpose of broadcasting a prisoner’s death.

The Pentagon subsequently confirmed that Trump and Hegseth had discussed the decision before the president’s announcement.

A spokesperson said the defense secretary supported Trump’s reversal and that both men were fully aligned.

Even Trump’s allies disagreed

The controversy had also exposed differing views within the administration.

Vice-President JD Vance had previously questioned whether the execution would actually be livestreamed.

“I don’t know that that’s actually going to happen,” he told reporters.

Vance also made clear that he had no intention of watching the broadcast if it went ahead.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, meanwhile, defended the original proposal, arguing that nobody would be forced to watch.

“No one has to watch it,” Mullin said during an interview with CBS News.

Hegseth had similarly justified the broadcast by arguing that people needed to understand the serious consequences of committing such crimes.

Trump himself had sent mixed signals in the days leading up to his announcement.

On Friday, he said he “absolutely” approved of livestreaming the execution. By Saturday, however, he was publicly reconsidering.

“There are two thoughts: don’t show it and show it,” he told reporters.

The president suggested that a public broadcast might discourage future attacks but said he would make the final decision himself.

His Thursday announcement settled the dispute over the livestream, while leaving the planned execution unchanged.

Immediate family members of Hasan’s victims will still have the option of witnessing it in person.

This article is made and published by Nicolai H, who may have used AI in the preparation