Brendan Carr says he’ll let Pete Hegseth decide whether TV networks can air the public execution

The Federal Communications Commission’s chairman, Brendan Carr, told a CNBC interview on Tuesday that he would defer to ary of Defense Pete Hegseth on any decision about whether television broadcasters could air the planned execution of former Army doctor Nidal Hasan, the perpetrator of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting. Carr’s comments came as the Pentagon announced that the execution, scheduled for later this year, would be livestreamed on a digital platform, a move that has reignited a longstanding debate over the public’s right to witness state‑sanctioned capital punishment and the role of the FCC in regulating such content.Hasan, who was convicted in 2013 of murdering 13 fellow service members and wounding more than 30 others, became the first U.S. federal inmate to be sentenced to death by firing squad..

The Department of Defense confirmed that the execution will be broadcast live on a streaming service owned by the government, a decision intended to ensure transparency while avoiding the pitfalls of unauthorized leaks that have plagued previous high‑profile executions. The choice of a digital platform, rather than a traditional broadcast network, has led some lawmakers and media analysts to question whether the FCC retains any jurisdiction over the transmission of the footage.In response, Carr emphasized that the FCC’s authority traditionally covers “public airwaves” – radio and television frequencies that are licensed by the commission – and not internet‑based services that operate outside the scope of the agency’s regulatory framework. “My understanding is it’s not on broadcast TV, so I don’t think there’s a role for the FCC one way or the other,” Carr said, adding that he would “trust ary Hegseth to make the call” on whether any network might seek to rebroadcast the footage in a traditional format..

His remarks suggest a clear delineation between the commission’s remit and the Pentagon’s decision‑making, a stance that could set a precedent for future cases where government actions are disseminated via online channels.The Pentagon’s plan to livestream the execution on a government‑run platform reflects a broader shift in how the military and other federal agencies communicate with the public. After a series of high‑profile leaks and the rise of social media, officials have increasingly turned to direct‑to‑consumer streaming to control the narrative and mitigate misinformation. However, critics argue that such an approach may sidestep existing safeguards meant to protect the public from potentially graphic or distressing content, especially given the historical controversy surrounding televised executions in the United States.Supporters of the livestream argue that transparency is a fundamental democratic principle, particularly when the state wields the ultimate power over life and death..

They cite the Supreme Court’s decision in Glossip v. Gross (2015), which upheld the constitutionality of certain execution methods, and contend that allowing the public to witness the procedure reinforces accountability. Moreover, proponents claim that a controlled, government‑hosted stream can incorporate delayed broadcasting features, content warnings, and age restrictions, thereby addressing concerns about the impact on vulnerable viewers.Opponents, including several civil‑rights groups and media watchdogs, warn that broadcasting an execution – even on a restricted platform – could normalize state‑sanctioned killing and desensitize the audience to violence..

They point to the 1996 decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, which upheld the FCC’s authority to regulate indecent content on broadcast media, as a potential legal avenue for future challenges, despite the current execution being slated for an online medium. Some legal scholars argue that the FCC could still exert influence if a network sought to air the footage on its over‑the‑air channels, thereby re‑introducing the commission’s regulatory oversight.The question of whether broadcast networks would be allowed to air the execution hinges on several factors, including contractual agreements with the Pentagon, the presence of any statutory prohibitions, and the willingness of networks to assume the reputational risk associated with airing a firing‑squad execution..

Historically, the last televised execution in the United States – that of Gary Gilmore in 1977 – sparked intense public backlash and contributed to the eventual moratorium on televised capital punishment. Since then, most executions have been conducted behind closed doors, with only limited footage released after the fact.Legal experts note that even if the FCC were to assert jurisdiction, any ruling would likely be subject to intense judicial scrutiny. The commission’s mandate to protect the public interest on the airwaves must be balanced against First Amendment protections, a tension that has produced a patchwork of precedents..

Fox Television Stations (2009), the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s authority to regulate indecent content, but later decisions have carved out broader free‑speech rights for broadcasters, especially concerning matters of public concern. An execution, framed as a matter of public interest, could thus fall into a legally ambiguous zone.Meanwhile, the Department of Defense has signaled that the livestream will include a delay mechanism and a “soft‑stop” feature that can halt the broadcast if unforeseen complications arise. Officials say the stream will be available only through a secure portal, with verification required to access the content..

This approach is intended to limit accidental exposure, though it about the accessibility of such a high‑profile event to the general public. The Pentagon has not ruled out the possibility of releasing highlights or a condensed version to the media after the execution, a move that could reignite the debate over broadcast eligibility.As the scheduled date approaches, the interplay between the FCC, the Pentagon, and the media landscape will likely serve as a litmus test for how government‑controlled content is managed in an era where the lines between traditional broadcasting and digital streaming are increasingly blurred. Whether Carr’s deference to Hegseth will be seen as a prudent acknowledgment of jurisdictional boundaries or as a missed opportunity to assert regulatory oversight remains to be seen..

What is clear is that the execution of Nidal Hasan will be a focal point for broader conversations about transparency, media responsibility, and the evolving role of the FCC in a digital age..