Brother of Fort Hood soldier killed in attack has message for Trump over plan to livestream Nidal Hasan's execution
The brother of one of the victims of Nidal Malik Hasan has penned a letter to the White House voicing his concerns over controversial plans to livestream the convicted killer’s execution later this year.
Hasan is scheduled to be executed by firing squad in Fort Hood, Texas on December 3. The former US Army major and psychiatrist killed 13 people and injured over 30 others in a November 5, 2009 attack at the Fort Hood military base. 12 of the 13 fatalities were soldiers.
In 2013, Hasan was ultimately convicted by a military jury on 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.
Hasan, now 56, will face his death by firing squad in just under two months’ time, with Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth announcing earlier in October that the public would be able to “watch it” on a livestream.
Amid the fierce debate that statement predictably caused, President Donald Trump then told reporters he “absolutely” approved of the plan to allow people to watch live as justice was done. Per NBC News, he later conceded he had yet to make a “final decision”.
Among the soldiers who perished in Hasan’s attack was Army Private First Class (Pfc) Michael Pearson. His brother has now reportedly written to the White House urging them to “reconsider” a livestream of Hasan’s execution.
Kristopher Craig, himself an Army veteran, penned his thoughts in a letter to President Trump and Hegseth, the contents of which were shared exclusively by Newsweek.
Detailing how he’s had to live with his brother’s death and ‘the consequences of what happened that day’ for 17 years, Craig revealed he had considered ‘grief, anger, forgiveness and justice’ but never contemplated ever having to think about his brother’s demise becoming ‘part of another public spectacle’.
“When you speak about justice for the victims of Fort Hood, I ask you to remember that you are speaking about people whose lives were much larger than the circumstances of their deaths,” Craig wrote.
Craig stated he did not want the memory of his brother to be ‘tied to the public broadcast of another human being’s death,’ but rather that he be remembered ‘for the person he was, full of goodness, his hopes, the life he was trying to build, and everything he might have become if he had been allowed to grow older’.
As for the notion of livestreaming Hasan’s execution for public viewing, Craig wrote: “Does witnessing another person’s death make someone less likely to commit violence? Does it make our communities safer? Or does it simply give the public another act of violence to watch, this time carried out by the government?”
He went on to question the ‘purpose’ of the broadcast, given it won’t bring is brother back, nor ‘restore the futures that were stolen from the 13 people’ and nor will it ‘ease the grief’ felt by loved ones.
“There is a difference between accountability and spectacle, and there is a difference between honoring the dead and inviting the public to watch someone else die in their name,” he added.
Later in the letter, Craig wrote: “Do not make the deaths of our loved ones the justification for turning another death into a public event. Whatever happens to Nidal Hasan, let it happen without an audience assembled by the government to witness his final moments.
“I have lived long enough with the knowledge of what violence took from my family. I do not want my brother’s memory used to give violence an audience.
“Michael deserved the chance to live a full life, and he was denied that chance. The least we can do now is remember that his life was worth more than the way it ended. We should not have to watch another human being die to remember the value of the lives we lost.”
The Pentagon, it’s reported, declined to comment when contacted for a statement by Newsweek.
NO SURRENDER — Ilhan Omar Fires Back at Donald Trump After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Ilhan Omar is refusing to back down after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home in a criminal investigation—an extraordinary development that has reignited her long-running confrontation with Donald Trump just weeks before the midterm elections.
The Minnesota Democrat responded with a defiant message: “I will not be silenced.” She accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to target political opponents and described the search as another escalation in what she called a decade-long campaign of intimidation.
The statement immediately raised the political stakes. Omar is not simply disputing the circumstances surrounding the search; she is challenging the administration’s conduct and demanding that the public examine why federal agents took such a consequential step so close to an election.
But the central questions remain unresolved: What exactly are investigators looking for, what evidence supports the inquiry, and will the search trigger a broader confrontation between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration?
‘I Will Not Be Silenced’: Omar’s Defiant Response
On October 12, after news of the search emerged, Omar posted a response on social media that began with a brief reassurance: “I’m ok.”
She then delivered a much sharper political message, accusing the administration of targeting political enemies and weaponizing federal law enforcement.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” Omar wrote, describing the search as the latest escalation in what she characterized as political intimidation. She ended with a declaration that quickly became the defining line of her response: “I will not be silenced.”
Her congressional office issued a separate statement calling the search an “outrageous abuse of power” and an “unprecedented escalation” in the use of federal law enforcement against political opponents. The statement said Omar had done nothing wrong and argued that no president should be able to use the federal government to intimidate political adversaries.
Those are Omar’s allegations and her office’s position. The search itself was carried out under a judicially authorized warrant, according to the Justice Department. Whether investigators uncover evidence of wrongdoing—and whether the search was justified by the facts of the case—remains to be established.
What Happened at Omar’s Washington Home?
Federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, searched Omar’s Washington residence early Monday, October 12.
The Justice Department confirmed that agents executed a search warrant authorized by a court as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Officials did not publicly disclose a complete account of the evidence being sought or all the details of the inquiry.
Reporting by CBS News and The Washington Post indicated that investigators were examining immigration paperwork dating back to Omar’s childhood. The documents reportedly involved paperwork completed by her late father when the family came to the United States as refugees from Somalia.
The details remain limited, and the reported focus of the investigation should not be confused with a finding of guilt. A search warrant authorizes investigators to look for specified evidence; it does not establish that the person whose home is searched committed a crime.
Omar has repeatedly rejected allegations against her and portrayed the renewed scrutiny as politically motivated. Her office’s statement following the search reiterated that she had done nothing wrong.
As of the latest reports, authorities had not publicly laid out a complete evidentiary case against the congresswoman. That leaves a critical distinction at the center of the story: the investigation is real, but its ultimate findings are not yet known.
Why the Timing Has Become a Political Flashpoint
The search took place less than a month before the November midterm elections, when control of Congress is at stake. That timing has intensified questions from Democrats about whether the action could influence the political environment surrounding Omar’s reelection campaign.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats raised concerns about the search, while senior Democratic leaders condemned the action and questioned the use of federal power against a sitting member of Congress so close to an election.
The criticism centers on more than Omar’s personal dispute with Trump. It touches on a broader principle: federal law enforcement must be able to investigate potential crimes, but its decisions should be grounded in evidence and applied without improper political influence.
The Justice Department has confirmed the existence of a court-authorized search but has not publicly provided a full explanation of the investigative rationale. Without that information, it is not possible to establish from the public record alone whether the timing was politically motivated or driven by investigative necessities.
That uncertainty is likely to keep the controversy alive. Democrats are demanding answers about the decision and its timing, while the investigation itself remains ongoing.
A Long-Running Clash Between Omar and Trump
Omar has been one of Trump’s most prominent congressional critics. Their political conflict has repeatedly drawn national attention, with disputes involving immigration, national identity, federal enforcement and the congresswoman’s background.
Trump has frequently criticized Omar in public, while Omar has accused him of spreading false claims and using inflammatory rhetoric against her and the Somali American community.
In the days before the search, Omar had also criticized Trump’s rhetoric about Somali Americans. The latest federal action therefore arrived against the backdrop of an already bitter political relationship—not in isolation.
Still, a history of public hostility does not by itself prove that a federal investigation was politically directed. Establishing improper interference would require evidence about how the investigation was initiated, authorized and conducted.
That distinction matters because the controversy involves two separate questions: whether investigators have a legitimate basis to pursue the case, and whether the administration has handled the matter in a politically appropriate way.
Both questions deserve scrutiny, but neither should be treated as settled before the relevant evidence is available.
Democrats Demand Answers as the Investigation Continues
Omar’s response has been echoed by Democratic colleagues who say the search raises serious concerns about the use of federal power. Some have called for accountability and greater transparency about the investigation.
Their criticism is also shaped by the election calendar. A federal search involving a sitting member of Congress in the final weeks before voters head to the polls is certain to draw heightened political attention, even when authorities have a judicial warrant.
The administration’s position and the investigators’ evidence will be crucial to determining how the controversy develops. If officials disclose a clear evidentiary basis for the search, that information will help the public evaluate the government’s actions. If significant questions remain unanswered, pressure for congressional oversight may intensify.
For now, the public has only a partial picture of the investigation. Officials have confirmed a court-authorized search, but have not disclosed all the evidence or publicly established that Omar committed a crime.
What Happens Next for Ilhan Omar?
The immediate questions are whether investigators will release additional information, whether Omar or her representatives will provide further details, and whether congressional leaders will seek formal oversight of the search.
Omar has made her own position unmistakable: she intends to continue speaking out and views the search as an attempt to intimidate a political opponent. The Trump administration’s critics have embraced that interpretation, while the legal justification for the search must ultimately be evaluated through the evidence and applicable law.
The coming days could bring more details about the investigation, new statements from lawmakers and further debate over the role of federal law enforcement during an election season.
For now, the most defensible conclusion is also the most consequential: a federal search has triggered a major political confrontation, Omar has publicly challenged the administration’s motives, and key questions about the investigation remain unanswered.
Her “I will not be silenced” declaration has become a rallying cry for her response. Whether the dispute grows into a wider congressional battle will depend on what investigators reveal next—and whether the government can explain its actions in a way that withstands public and legal scrutiny.
