U.S military prepares for first execution in over 60 years as Trump can now approve former Army major’s death sentence
Nidal Malik Hasan, Donald Trump. Credit: Getty Images
For more than six decades, the U.S military has not carried out an execution. Now, that could change. According to documents, the U.S. Army is preparing for the possible executions of no less than four prisoners on military death row.
The death penalty in the U.S. has been heavily debated for years and years. Some argue it’s reasonable – a life for a life, etc. – and more economical, while others focus on the moral side of it, arguing it’s inhuman.
However, the death penalty is still very much active in many states. And soon, more executions could be on the agenda, this time by orders from the top.
On his very first day back in the White House, Trump made his position on the death penalty clear. He signed an executive order directing the Justice Department to pursue capital punishment more aggressively, after the Biden administration had paused federal executions.
Federal executions had also stopped during Barack Obama’s presidency. During his time in office, Obama commuted the death sentence of military death-row prisoner Dwight Loving to life in prison without parole. Loving had been convicted of murdering two soldiers in 1988.
An internal planning document reportedly instructs Army officials to prepare for the executions if President Donald Trump approves the death sentences of the four prisoners.
The plans would only move forward if Trump signs off on the death sentences, according to reports. The internal document, called Operation Resolute Justice, was issued in February.
U.S military ‘prepares’ for first execution in over 60 years
It outlines plans to transfer prisoners from the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to the federal execution facility in Terre Haute, Indiana. The Terre Haute facility was used for a series of federal executions during Donald Trump’s first presidency.
The U.S military has not executed anyone in more than 60 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 US service member to be executed. Army spokesperson Cynthia Smith told ABC News a few months ago 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.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
She added that at that time, no direct orders had been received from the president. However, the internal plan is said to direct several Army organizations to prepare for – and facilitate – executions “no later than 150 days from the date of presidential approval of the death sentences.”
Former Army major’s death sentence could be approved by Donald Trump
As per the Army’s May 2026 legal review, four prisoners are currently on death row in the U.S. military system: Ronald Gray, Hasan Akbar, Timothy Hennis, and Nidal Hasan.
Former Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan’s death sentence could potentially move forward. He was convicted for the 2009 Fort Hood shooting in Texas, one of the deadliest attacks on a U.S. military base. Thirteen people were killed, and 32 others were wounded.
The Army’s legal journal says Hasan was convicted by a general court-martial in 2013 and sentenced to death. War Secretary Pete Hegseth said in September that he is seeking the death penalty for Hasan.
“I am 100 percent committed to ensuring the death penalty is carried out for Nidal Hasan. This savage terrorist deserves the harshest lawful punishment for his 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood. The victims and survivors deserve justice without delay,” Hegseth said in a statement sent to KWTX by the Pentagon.
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)
Another prisoner 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.
Could mark first U.S military execution since 1961
President George W. Bush approved Gray’s execution in July 2008, and an execution date was initially set for December that year. However, a federal judge later put the execution on hold. Another judge eventually lifted that stay in 2016.
Gray remains the only prisoner currently on military death row whose execution has previously received presidential approval.
Another prisoner is former Master Sgt. Timothy Hennis, who was convicted of raping and killing a woman and murdering her two young daughters.
The fourth man is former Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar, who was convicted of killing two officers and attempting to murder 16 others in 2003. He was sentenced to death by a general court-martial in 2005.
Time will tell whether the prisoners will be executed or perhaps imprisoned for the rest of their lives.
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.
