Overview of the Allegations

Ryan Routh has been accused by federal prosecutors of plotting to assassinate then-presidential candidate Donald Trump during a golf event in September 2024. Recent court filings reveal that Routh went beyond mere intentions; he allegedly sought to acquire military-grade weaponry to further his plans.

Weapon Acquisition Attempts

According to the government’s filing, Routh attempted to purchase an anti-aircraft weapon, specifically mentioning a desire for an RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) or a Stinger missile from a contact he believed to be associated with Ukrainian military resources.

In his communications, he reportedly stated, “I need equipment so that Trump cannot get elected,” highlighting the political motivations behind his alleged actions. Additionally, he sought to obtain a .50 caliber rifle, a significantly more destructive weapon than one previously acquired. Although he aimed to procure this firearm from a gun show, the acquisition reportedly did not occur until after the attempted assassination.

Details of the Assassination Attempt

On the day of the attempted assassination, Routh was observed hiding among the bushes near Trump International Golf Club, situated approximately 300 to 500 yards from Trump, who was engaged in a round of golf. A member of Trump’s Secret Service detail noticed Routh’s rifle positioned within the tree line and initiated gunfire at him. Routh did not return fire and subsequently fled the scene but was arrested about 50 miles north of the golf course.

Notably, the Secret Service has stated that Routh was unable to directly see Trump from his location on the course.

Legal Proceedings and Defense Claims

As the legal proceedings advance towards a trial scheduled for September 8, 2025, Routh’s defense lawyers have filed a motion to suppress an eyewitness identification that played a crucial role in Routh’s arrest. They argue that the police procedures during the eyewitness’s identification were “impermissibly suggestive,” claiming this could lead to a misidentification.

The defense cites that an individual witness was presented with only one photograph of Routh after his detention, which they believe taints the identification process. They have urged the court to rule the witness testimony as “constitutionally inadmissible.”