Sometimes, in the quiet of the night, attorney Gerald Bo King sees his client, Brad Sigmon, die — again and again. The silence reminds him of the moments in the death chamber before the guns went off.
On March 7, 2025, King watched as the curtain opened at 6 p.m., revealing Broad River Correctional Institution’s execution chamber and Sigmon, strapped to a slanted chair. His chin was held in place by restraints, and there was a large target on his chest. “The most unsettling aspect of it was the mechanics,” King recalls. Sigmon was dressed in black — which he joked was slimming — but was really meant to hide the blood. A hood hid his face.
At 6:05 p.m., three blasts erupted from hidden ports, and before King could even register the sound of the shotguns wielded by prison volunteers, he watched as the target on his friend and client’s chest vaporized. “Suddenly there was this big hole in the middle of his chest that blood was spilling out of,” King recalls. Sigmon didn’t die instantly; he was pronounced dead three minutes after the shots were fired, his blood pooling in a basin below.
In South Carolina, where he was executed, Sigmon was given the option to die by lethal injection, electric chair, or the firing squad. Given how often lethal injection is botched, and the fear of being “cook[ed] alive” by the electric chair, Sigmon chose the firing squad, making him the first person to be executed via that method in the U.S. in 15 years.
“It’s an impossible experience to witness something like that without imagining yourself in the role of everyone else there, in part, because it is so strange, surreal,” says King. “It is not something that you get over; it is not something that affects you in any kind of predictable way. There’s something deeper than grief about seeing someone you fought for for years die.”
Last week, the Justice Department announced its intention to bring the firing squad back to federal prisons. The method has long been considered “more humane” than other forms of execution — in that it’s more immediate and harder to botch — but as Sigmon’s execution demonstrates, and as death penalty critics argue, there is no truly painless way to kill someone. The revival of an execution method many see as barbaric is most likely a symptom of a president and an administration obsessed with violence, and there’s no telling where the bloodlust will end.
“Our position is that there is no good way to kill somebody, not by lethal injection, not by firing squad, not by gas, not by electrocution, not by hanging,” says Alli Sullivan, communications coordinator for Death Penalty Action. “Trump loves having the power to kill people. And I think, on some level, what we’re seeing right now is an extension of him being frustrated that he doesn’t get to kill those 37 people whose sentences were commuted by Biden.”
The death penalty has been in flux since Trump first took office in 2016. He has long been a big proponent of the practice, and ended his first administration with a killing spree that saw 13 federal inmates executed before Joe Biden took office. He has also previously discussed bringing back firing squads, hangings, and even execution by guillotine.
“He had a particular affinity for the firing squad, because it seemed more dramatic, rather than how we do it, putting a syringe in people and putting them to sleep,” a former White House official told us in 2023. “He was big on the idea of executing large numbers of drug dealers and drug lords because he’d say, ‘These people don’t care about anything,’ and that they run their drug empire and their deals from prison anyways, and then they get back out on the street, get all their money again, and keep committing crimes … and therefore, they need to be eradicated, not jailed.”
Biden, in turn, commuted the sentences of 37 people on federal death row right before Christmas in 2024, stoking Trump’s ire. “Also, to the 37 most violent criminals, who killed, raped, and plundered like virtually no one before them, but were just given, incredibly, a pardon by Sleepy Joe Biden,” the current president wrote on Christmas Day. “I refuse to wish a Merry Christmas to those lucky ‘souls’ but, instead, will say, GO TO HELL!”
When he returned to office, Trump ratcheted up his dedication to the death penalty, despite the fact that it’s at an all-time nadir in popularity in the U.S. He released an executive order in January 2025 reversing Biden’s 2021 moratorium on federal executions, and in his most recent move, expressed a desire to “restore its solemn duty to seek, obtain, and implement lawful capital sentences — clearing the way for the Department to carry out executions once death-sentenced inmates have exhausted their appeals.”
The Justice Department has now released a 52-page document laying out plans to reauthorize lethal injection protocols in federal prisons (which Biden withdrew days before Trump took office due to concerns over unnecessary pain and suffering), speed the journey from the court room to the death chamber, and bring back the firing squad and other execution methods.
“The prior administration failed in its duty to protect the American people by refusing to pursue and carry out the ultimate punishment against the most dangerous criminals, including terrorists, child murderers, and cop killers,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. “Under President Trump’s leadership, the Department of Justice is once again enforcing the law and standing with victims.”
However, as Robin M. Maher, executive director of Death Penalty Information Center, points out: “We’re at a five-decade low in terms of public support for the death penalty and opposition has never been higher than it is this year. There are so many concerns about use of the death penalty that it is really somewhat bewildering that the DOJ has decided to prioritize expanding the death penalty and the ways in which we can execute people instead of the other priorities that are more important to the American people.”
The firing squad was used as the de facto form of execution until the turn of the 20th century, according to Frank R. Baumgartner, a Richard J. Richardson distinguished professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Around 1895, they started with electrocutions,” he adds. “The electric chair was supposed to be a more civilized and more technologically advanced system. And the same was true of lethal injection.”
Since 1977, only a handful of people have been killed via firing squad, starting with Gary Gilmore, who died in a display papers called a “grisly circus.” Five states — Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah — currently offer the firing squad as an execution method.
Sigmore’s execution in South Carolina was the first by firing squad in years, followed by Mikal Mahdi (April 2025), and Stephen Bryant (November 2025), both also in South Carolina. Mahdi’s lawyers allege that he was only shot two times, instead of three, and thus not shot in the heart, leading to a prolonged death.
“Firing squads have often been talked about as being more of a sure thing without complications than lethal injection,” says Maher. “[But] methods of execution cannot be guaranteed to go without anomalies.”
“It’s definitely possible to botch the firing squad; the person dies, but they die of loss of blood, so it takes some time,” adds Baumgartner. “So it’s got to be a terrible thing to observe.”
Regardless of the method, executions can be traumatizing for everyone involved. Prison employees have complained about the rate of executions and its effect on their mental health. In 2022, there were so many executions at Oklahoma State Penitentiary that the state’s attorney general and the head of the prison services both requested that executions be staggered due to “lasting trauma” and “psychological toll.” The court has not granted the request.
King, Sigmore’s lawyer, points out that we don’t often consider the effect such a thing has on prison employees. “I just keep thinking about the guards who had to put him in the chair and strap him down around his chin and around his waist,” he says of his own experience with Sigmon. “It’s just really disturbing.”
And Oklahoma staffers were only witnessing lethal injections. “The firing squad and hanging make no pretense about the violent nature of the act,” says Baumgartner. “But people haven’t been comfortable with that honesty, because the honesty is quite brutal, and that involves blood, and seeing somebody bleed to death.”
Regarding Trump’s recent efforts to restore the firing squad to federal prisons, Maher points out that it could be more saber-rattling than anything else — at least should a Democrat be elected in 2028.
“These ideas will need to be published, and they will be open for public comment,” she says. “Protocols will need to be developed and new facilities will need to be built to enable these methods of execution to be used. It will require a tremendous investment of taxpayer dollars and government resources in implementing these new methods of execution. And I don’t think that the American public is going to be thrilled with the idea that is where their resources and taxpayer dollars are being spent.” Plus, there are currently only three people on federal death row, and none of them are eligible yet to receive a date, she says.
Still, Maher concedes, “I have learned not to predict what the Trump administration will do or say. I think most people have learned the error of doing so, because really, anything can happen.”
Balloons and signs lay on the floor as people celebrate during the final day of the Democratic National Convention at the United Center on Aug. 22, 2024 in Chicago, Ill.
Trump Is in Freefall — But Can Dems Do the Work to Actually Win Back Voters?
Autopsies are inherently messy, but any forensic scientist would lose their license if they left as much blood splattered around the room as the DNC’s 2024 election report.
The process was chaotic from the start — a report commissioned, left unfinished, hidden by the top brass and then, when scooped by CNN’s Edward-Isaac Dovere, suddenly released into the world riddled with crimson annotations that alternately disavowed and apologized for the shoddy product. This combination of defensiveness and reflexive apology is a perfect encapsulation of the problems facing the Democratic Party.
This is a shambolic shame because there is a real need for a data-driven analysis of what went wrong in 2024. Democrats need to deal with the uncomfortable fact that the party lost an election to an unhinged felon and two years later their approval rating somehow remains lower than Donald Trump, even while the president’s approval is in freefall because of rising costs, unprecedented corruption, chaotic government, an unpopular foreign war, and daily assaults on the Constitution.
The Democratic brand damage is deep and needs to be addressed. But there is a strong impulse toward denial in part because an honest assessment might offend someone, somewhere — and because Democrats look likely to benefit from the pendulum swing of politics by making the gains in the midterms.
These expected wins will give our republic the necessary checks and balances to get through Donald Trump’s disfigurement of American democracy. But they won’t be enough to break the fever in our polarized politics.
Especially with the rollback of the Voting Rights Act in the South and demographic shifts from blue states to red, Democrats need to rebuild the big tent and win back swing voters in swing states that have abandoned them over decades. That’s not all. They need to field a new brand of rural and red state Democrats, as well. To do this, they’ll need to drop the self-righteous ideological purity tests that preoccupy online debates and get back in the business of persuasion beyond the base.
In one of the few useful sections of the half-baked 2024 election report, the anonymous author analyzes the ticket splitting that occurred in the crucial swing state of North Carolina, where now Governor Josh Stein outpaced Kamala Harris’ campaign by a solid 8.5 points.
Yes, this success was aided by the Republican nominee Mark Robinson describing himself a “Black Nazi” with a love of online porn that rivaled his love for Trump. But the autopsy argues that Stein’s strength was rooted in his decision to “focus less on abstract issues and identity politics, and connect with voters on the issues they say matter most, including the economy, disaster relief, and addressing housing affordability.”
This sentence is worth unpacking, as it’s the only place in the report that uses the phrase “identity politics” — which is one more time than the report mentions Gaza or Joe Biden’s age.
Blue Rose Research has published some of the most honest and challenging analysis of Democrats’ problems to date (and should be commissioned to redo this report). One of their most searing statistical condemnations — explained in an essential interview between Blue Rose’s David Shorr and the New York Times’ Ezra Klein — is the fact that Democrats lost ground with young voters and in communities of color. Hispanic moderates in particular swung 23 points away from Democrats between 2016 and 2024. Moderate Asian-American voters swung 11 percent against Democrats in that same time frame. Despite promising mass deportations, Trump actually won the votes of foreign-born immigrant citizens. A focus on identity politics is not achieving its intended goal. As a leading Democrat from the Obama White House once told me, “We appeal to voters as members of groups, but people don’t vote as groups — they vote as individuals.”
As the autopsy explains, “millions of Americans are suffering from poor access to health care, manufacturing and job losses, and a failing infrastructure, yet continue to be persuaded to vote against their best interests because they do not see themselves reflected in the America of the Democratic Party.”
Until Democrats face the hard truths of why folks don’t see themselves reflected in their vision of America, they are going to keep coming up short.
This disconnect is compounded by a core problem: Democrats score best on the issues that voters say they care about least — like LGBTQ policies, climate change, abortion, child care, and student debt — while Republicans maintain a reputation for being strong on cost of living, inflation, crime, taxes, national security, and border security.
All these issues are important, but there is a hierarchy of needs in people’s lives, and Republicans have a better brand perception when it comes to dealing with the fundamentals that apply broadly in day-to-day life for most Americans, with the exception of health care. For Democrats, the lesson is that if you don’t get the big things right, the small things don’t matter.
The next Democratic Congress and the next Democratic president are going to need a relentless focus on getting shit done — proving that government can work again for working people and deliver results that they can see and feel in their own lives.
Making sure that people see results is not just a communications problem, but it does require disrupting the consultant industrial complex. Buried on page 40, the autopsy points out the absurdity of the fundraising hamster wheel that delivers donor dollars to broadcast and cable ad buys: “In the current media ecosystem, Republicans own and Democrats rent,” it says. “Democrats pay for seasonal access to the networks, stations, platforms, and newspapers owned by Republicans or right-wing entities, to advertise and communicate with voters. … In a sense, Democrats are funding right-wing media to buy more properties and expand their ability to drive partisan perspectives.”
This is true. Democrats need to build their own long-term influence infrastructure instead of defaulting to broad-based cable TV ad buys and mailers. It would be far more effective to identify and target persuadable voters where they live — on their phones, on YouTube, and on social media platforms — in order to reach the right voters with the right message at the right time, as opposed to the essentially analog spray and pray model still in place today because consultants get 10 percent of the buy. It is an arena ripe for disruption.
To win back the middle of America, Democrats need to focus on rebuilding the middle class and the middle of our politics. They need to project strength, reclaim patriotism, and ditch identity politics in favor of focusing on affordability and the economy. Rather than defending a broken status quo, Democrats need to be the party of change and reform, modernizing government to help hard-working Americans get ahead, and delivering on the promise of putting the national interest over all special interests.