Andy Burnham has said it is “abhorrent” that a public execution is set to be livestreamed in the US.
Article continues below
The Prime Minister said he would never support the action, after US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth – backed by Donald Trump – said the killing by firing squad of a former US Army major would be shown online.
Mr Burnham told the Rest is Politics podcast, hosted by Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell: “I certainly would never support that. So I’m happy to make my view clear. I would also, though, say it’s not necessarily the same, then, as if we make what we stand for.
Article continues below
“You don’t have to go around providing constant running commentary on everybody else. Just be clear about what we stand for, what we believe is right and wrong.
“Let Britain stand for something in a world that seems to change every day. It’s something that I can’t say I ever want to see anywhere in the world, Alastair. It’s something that I find quite abhorrent in many ways. But, you know, I only want to speak for what we will do, and why we will do it.”
Last week the US Defense Department said it intended to livestream the execution of Nidal Malik Hasan by firing squad. Mr Hegseth said: “People need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things.”
Asked if he had given it the green light, Trump said: “Did I approve? Absolutely I did.” But Vice President JD Vance said he would not watch the execution if it was broadcast.
Article continues below
Former US Army Major Hasan was sentenced to death for killing 13 and wounding 32 others in a 2009 attack at Fort Hood military base.
On Saturday the Pope, Leo XIV, criticised the death penalty, stating on X: “The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. The common good can be safeguarded and the requirements of justice can be met without recourse to capital punishment.”
Defence Secretary Wes Streeting, Mr Hegseth’s counterpart, said: “I don’t support the death penalty. So I obviously don’t support this particular step or this particular approach. Whether or not it happens is something else.
Article continues below
“I think this is a debate that’s taking place in the United States as well. And you’ve seen the comments made by JD Vance, the US vice president, so we’ll see.
“But we don’t support the death penalty. We take a very different approach here in the UK. And long may that continue.”
In an interview with Sky News, Mr Streeting continued: “Where we disagree with friends, there’s a way of doing it and, along with the Foreign Secretary, I’ve got an important responsibility to work with the United States to leverage their support in a whole number of ways, from supporting UK national security and our interests and supporting our allies.
Article continues below
“So you’ll have to forgive me, sometimes I resist the temptation to engage in megaphone diplomacy and instead engage in actual diplomacy, which is sometimes a tight line to walk.”
Andy Burnham Hits Out at ‘Abhorrent’ US Public Execution Plan Backed by Trump
Andy Burnham has criticised plans in the United States to livestream a military execution, describing the proposal as “abhorrent” and making clear that he would never support such a practice. His comments have reignited debate over capital punishment, human rights and the responsibilities of governments when dealing with some of the most serious crimes.
The controversy centres on Nidal Malik Hasan, the former US Army psychiatrist convicted of killing 13 people and injuring 32 others in the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. Hasan is scheduled to face execution by firing squad on December 3, 2026, although the proposal to broadcast the execution online remains subject to political uncertainty.
The plan has attracted criticism from human rights advocates, religious leaders and international organisations. While supporters of the proposal argue that publicly displaying the consequences of extreme violence could deter future crimes, opponents question whether turning an execution into a widely accessible broadcast is compatible with basic principles of human dignity.
Burnham’s intervention adds a British political voice to a debate that has rapidly expanded beyond the United States. It also raises questions about how the UK should express its values when a close ally pursues a policy that many British politicians and campaigners find deeply troubling.
Burnham makes his position clear
Speaking in an interview for The Rest Is Politics podcast, Burnham said he would never support the livestreaming of an execution. He described the proposal as something he would not want to see anywhere in the world and said he found it “quite abhorrent in many ways”.
His remarks reflected concern not only about the death penalty itself but also about the decision to make the act available for public viewing.
Burnham also suggested that Britain should be clear about the principles it stands for. Governments do not necessarily need to comment continuously on every decision made by another country, he indicated, but they should be willing to explain their own positions on fundamental questions of right and wrong.
The comments come amid wider debate about Britain’s relationship with the Trump administration. The United States remains one of the UK’s closest security and diplomatic partners, with cooperation spanning defence, intelligence, trade and international affairs.
That relationship can make public criticism diplomatically sensitive. British leaders must often balance the importance of maintaining cooperation with the need to express disagreement over policies that conflict with domestic law or established human rights principles.
Burnham’s position suggests that such cooperation should not prevent Britain from articulating its opposition to a practice it considers unacceptable.
However, condemning the proposal does not automatically mean that the UK government will seek to intervene directly. The execution concerns a US military case, and decisions about its implementation fall primarily within the American legal and political system.
The case behind the controversy
Hasan was responsible for one of the deadliest shootings on a US military installation. On November 5, 2009, he opened fire at the Fort Hood military base in Texas, killing 13 people and injuring dozens more.
The attack devastated families and colleagues, many of whom were preparing for military deployment. The victims included members of the armed forces whose lives and careers were cut short while serving their country.
Hasan was subsequently convicted by a military court and sentenced to death. His case has remained a significant part of the debate over military justice, responsibility for mass violence and the use of capital punishment.
For the victims’ families, the prospect of an execution may represent the conclusion of a legal process that has continued for many years. Their suffering and the gravity of Hasan’s crimes are central to understanding why some people support the death penalty in cases involving mass murder.
Yet the question of whether a convicted killer should be executed is distinct from the question of whether that execution should be livestreamed.
Even among people who support capital punishment, there can be disagreement about the appropriate manner in which a sentence should be carried out and whether broadcasting the process serves any legitimate public purpose.
The debate is therefore not simply about Hasan or the crimes he committed. It concerns the limits of state power and the standards that should govern the treatment of prisoners, including those convicted of exceptionally serious offences.
Why the Pentagon wants the execution broadcast
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly supported making the planned execution available for viewers to watch. He has presented the proposal as a way to demonstrate that serious crimes carry serious consequences.
Supporters of this argument maintain that the prospect of severe punishment may discourage individuals from committing acts of extreme violence. They also argue that the military justice system should be able to demonstrate that its judgments are enforced.
The proposal nevertheless represents an unusual step in modern American practice. Public executions have largely disappeared from contemporary US life, and there is no established modern precedent for livestreaming a US military execution to a broad online audience.
The use of digital broadcasting raises additional concerns. Once footage is made available online, it may be recorded, copied, edited and circulated across social media platforms. Material originally intended for adults could reach children or other viewers who have not actively sought it out.
There is also a question about whether the broadcast would provide meaningful information about the justice system or instead turn a state-administered killing into a spectacle.
Critics argue that punishment should be administered through established legal procedures rather than presented as a public demonstration intended to attract attention.
They question whether witnessing an execution would genuinely deter violent crime, particularly when the factors behind mass violence can be complex and difficult to address through punishment alone.
The disagreement highlights a longstanding challenge in criminal justice: the difference between demonstrating that a punishment will be imposed and establishing that the punishment will prevent future offences.
Trump has not settled the livestream question
Although the proposal has been associated with the Trump administration, the precise status of the broadcast has remained uncertain.
President Donald Trump said on October 10 that he would make the final decision on whether the execution should be livestreamed. He acknowledged competing arguments, including the possibility that showing the execution might deter others from committing similar crimes.
His comments followed the Pentagon’s public indication that viewers would be able to watch the planned execution. Vice-President JD Vance, meanwhile, expressed reservations about the broadcast and said he would not personally watch it.
The differences in tone within the administration illustrate that the proposal has not been universally embraced, even among senior officials.
The distinction between approving an execution and approving its public broadcast is important. The two decisions involve separate questions about punishment, procedure, transparency and the role of the state.
A government might maintain that a death sentence is legally justified while still deciding that broadcasting the execution would be inappropriate.
For now, the uncertainty leaves open the possibility that the livestream plan could be changed, even if the scheduled execution itself remains in place.
International criticism grows
The United Nations has also condemned the proposed broadcast. UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric described public executions as “abhorrent” and warned that broadcasting such an event could raise serious concerns under international prohibitions against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The criticism places the proposal within a broader international discussion about human rights standards and the treatment of people under state control.
The death penalty remains a divisive issue around the world. Some countries retain it for certain serious crimes, while others have abolished it entirely or introduced long-standing moratoriums on its use.
Even in countries that retain capital punishment, the manner in which an execution is conducted can be subject to legal restrictions and public scrutiny.
The United States occupies a distinctive position in this debate. Capital punishment remains legal in some states and under federal and military law, although its application varies considerably. The proposed livestream has attracted particular attention because it would introduce an unprecedented form of public access to a modern US military execution.
Human rights advocates argue that the state’s authority to impose punishment should not be confused with an unrestricted right to display the process publicly.
The issue is likely to prompt further scrutiny from legal experts, civil liberties organisations and officials concerned about international human rights obligations.
Britain’s relationship with Washington
Burnham’s comments also touch on a broader question facing British politicians: how should the UK respond when the actions of an important ally conflict with its own established principles?
Britain and the United States maintain close cooperation on defence, intelligence, diplomacy and economic matters. That relationship has survived disagreements between governments over a wide range of international issues.
However, close cooperation does not require automatic endorsement of every American policy. British ministers can oppose a particular decision while continuing to work with Washington in other areas.
The UK abolished the death penalty for murder decades ago, completing its abolition for all offences in 1998. British governments have also traditionally opposed capital punishment in international human rights discussions.
That history helps explain why the prospect of a livestreamed execution has generated such strong reactions among British politicians.
The government’s response is likely to be shaped by the distinction between expressing opposition and attempting to influence a domestic American decision. Ministers may wish to make Britain’s position clear without turning the issue into a wider diplomatic confrontation.
Burnham’s comments, meanwhile, underline the importance of articulating national principles even when doing so involves a close international partner.
Would a public execution deter crime?
One of the central arguments advanced by supporters of the broadcast is that showing the execution could discourage future acts of mass violence. The claim raises a difficult question about the effectiveness of punishment as a deterrent.
The existence of severe penalties does not automatically establish that displaying their implementation will prevent crime. Assessing deterrence requires evidence about how potential offenders respond to punishment, the circumstances in which violent crimes occur and whether public exposure changes those calculations.
Some crimes are planned over extended periods, while others involve circumstances that make conventional deterrence difficult to evaluate. The effect of a livestream would therefore need to be assessed rather than simply assumed.
There are also possible unintended consequences. Graphic footage can circulate far beyond its intended audience, and the online distribution of an execution could create lasting material that victims’ families, children or other members of the public encounter unexpectedly.
The broadcast might also shift attention away from the people whose lives were lost in the original attack and towards the execution itself.
These concerns do not diminish the seriousness of Hasan’s crimes. Instead, they ask whether livestreaming an execution would serve a legitimate public purpose that outweighs its potential harms.
A credible debate must consider both the suffering caused by the original violence and the responsibilities that remain with the state when administering justice.
A difficult test of public values
Burnham’s intervention has brought renewed attention to an issue that reaches far beyond one scheduled execution. At its heart lies a fundamental question: should the state make the deliberate taking of a human life available as a public spectacle?
Supporters of the proposal may view it as a demonstration of accountability and a warning against extreme violence. Opponents argue that justice does not require broadcasting an execution and that the practice risks undermining human dignity without establishing any additional deterrent effect.
Trump’s decision will determine whether the planned livestream proceeds, but the wider debate is unlikely to end there. Even if the broadcast is cancelled, questions about capital punishment, military justice and the boundaries of public access to state punishment will remain.
For Britain, the controversy presents a challenge of principle and diplomacy. Burnham has made his opposition clear, while the UK government must decide how best to express its own position in the context of its relationship with Washington.
The case also demonstrates that the severity of a crime and the appropriateness of a proposed punishment are related but separate questions. Acknowledging the terrible consequences of the Fort Hood shooting does not remove the need to examine how the state responds.
As December 3 approaches, attention will remain focused on the Trump administration’s final decision. Whether the livestream goes ahead or not, the controversy has already prompted a significant international discussion about punishment, deterrence and the limits of what governments should place before a global audience.