“Mullin says livestreaming Hasan execution is part of 'restoring American values'”, 11 October 2026 (Photo via The Hill — the original report)
As it ran on the front
My phone bill came Tuesday, and I'm not complaining, I'm only telling you the number: forty-one dollars in overage charges, on a plan that covers six gigabytes a month. Six gigabytes, gone by the eleventh. I sat on the porch steps with the envelope and went looking for where it went. Video, mostly. Things that load on their own before I tap anything.
I bring up my bill because of what Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said on Face the Nation this Sunday, defending the Pentagon's plan to livestream the execution of Nidal Hasan, the man convicted of killing thirteen people at Fort Hood in 2009. His defense was that people against the broadcast don't have to watch it. Fair enough, as far as it goes. Does a gigabyte know the difference between a thing you watched and a thing that loaded anyway?…
…(cont) This didn't start Sunday, though, so let me walk it in order. On October 8th, War Secretary Pete Hegseth told Real America's Voice the execution would be "a public event." The same day, a defense department official clarified that public event means livestreamed, with more details to come. A date got set: December 3rd. Nobody that day said whose decision it was to make it public. Just that it would be.
Sunday, Mullin went on CBS to defend the plan that official had clarified in October, and "no one has to watch" was the whole of it — for about half the interview. Then, in the same conversation, Mullin called the livestream part of "restoring American values." I've been sitting with that one. A defense tells you that you're free to look away. A restoration tells you what the country is supposed to be looking at. Can a thing be both optional and a restoration at the same time, in the same ten minutes, from the same man?
Same day, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer said he's "so happy" that President Trump alone gets to decide whether the broadcast airs. Not relieved that someone's handling it. Happy. I drive a car that needs a fan belt, and it tells me what it needs every morning with a sound I understand. Four people are on the record about this execution now — Hegseth announced it, an official clarified it, Mullin defended it, Emmer applauded somebody else having the authority to decide it — and not one of those four sentences is "I ordered this broadcast." Is there a difference between defending a decision and admitting you made one?
I keep going back to my bill on the porch, forty-one dollars for data I didn't choose to spend, because Mullin's defense and Mullin's reframing can't both be the whole truth. If no one has to watch, what exactly is being restored for the people who do? And if it's a restoration, a program, a value — is "no one has to watch" still the honest description of it, or just the easier one to say on a Sunday morning show?
Oh — excuse me, before I let you go. Mullin told Margaret Brennan no one has to watch. In the same breath, he called it restoring American values. Which of those two sentences is the policy, and which one is just what you say until somebody asks the second question?
🍺
“They keep calling it optional, then calling it values, then calling it something to be happy about — that's not messaging, that's three different sales pitches for the same product. "No one has to watch" is for the people complaining, "restoring American values" is for the people cheering, and "I'm so happy" is for the people who already decided who gets to be the one deciding. Nobody in that building said "I ordered a public execution" — they just kept finding new reasons you shouldn't ask who did.”
“Look, nobody's forcing anyone to tune in, that's just basic viewer choice — if you don't like the broadcast, don't open the app, that's the whole system working the way it's supposed to. And when Secretary Mullin calls it "restoring American values," that's not a mandate, that's just patriotism, described as a broadcast — which, okay, I guess that is sort of a mandate. Did I say that? And Emmer's happy because the President's decisive, that's leadership, that's not the same as being happy about an execution, it's just — fine, maybe it's a little bit the same thing.”
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin stood behind the Trump administration’s decision to livestream the military execution of convicted Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, despite growing bipartisan criticism over the plan. In an interview with CBS News’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Mullin dismissed concerns…
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" defended the Pentagon's decision to livestream Ford Hood shooter Nidal Hassan's execution, saying "no one has to watch it if they don't choose to."
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin rejected the idea that livestreaming the execution of the Fort Hood mass shooter Nidal Malik Hasan could make him a martyr for his cause, saying those against the idea do not have to watch. Mullin told CBS News’s Face the Nation on Sunday that he sees no “elevated risk” of […]
House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) on Sunday said he is "so happy" that President Trump will decide on whether to livestream the execution by firing squad of convicted Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan. "I am so happy that we have a president, a chief executive in this country, who will make a decision which...
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin defended the Pentagon's plan to livestream the execution of an ex-Army major who was convicted of the 2009 killing of 13 people at Fort Hood.
This page is a back-issue: the story as it ran, receipts as they were. The current edition is at the front. The byline is a pen name for a column drafted by a machine and checked by the editor: how this is made.