by Reese Kubick '29 on October 2, 2025
National and Global News
On Sept. 15, 2024, Ryan Routh was perched in a bush at Donald Trump’s West Palm Beach Country Club, a rifle in hand, with the intent to assassinate President Trump. A Secret Service member recounted what happened on the golf course, saying that “he spotted Routh before Trump came into view. Routh aimed his rifle at the agent, who opened fire, causing Routh to drop his weapon and flee without firing a shot.” Law enforcement gained intel from a witness that he saw a man fleeing from the area after hearing gunshots, and the witness later confirmed that it was Routh whom he saw.
On Tuesday, Sept. 23, just over a year after the attempted assassination, Ryan Routh was found guilty of attempting to assassinate President Trump. Routh was charged with five federal criminal counts, including attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assault on a police officer, and firearm charges. These charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison.
The trial consisted of three weeks, and after the jury deliberated for several hours, they returned with the verdict: guilty on all charges.
The two councils spent weeks preparing their cases. Both sides’ arguments were complex, but here is a brief and simplified outline of the prosecution and defense arguments:
The prosecution argued that Routh had the intent to kill; in legal terms, intent is defined by having “mens rea,” which is a Latin term meaning a “guilty mind”. It determines responsibility and culpability, distinguishing accidental acts from purposeful ones. Intent is often proven through circumstantial evidence and can be classified as general intent (to perform the act) or specific intent (to achieve a particular result). The prosecution notes the 17 reconnaissance trips he made to the golf course, and they described Routh stalking Trump excessively. Additionally, they needed to prove that Routh had taken substantial steps to carry out the crime. Substantial steps is another legal term, which means, “an act that moves beyond mere preparation and strongly indicates a criminal intent to commit a crime, leaving no reasonable doubt about the defendant’s purpose.” To prove this case, Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Browne said: “This was not a publicity stunt…[T]he evidence has shown one thing and one thing only—the defendant wanted Donald Trump dead.” Browne also notes that Routh was hiding in the bush for nearly 10 hours before the attempt on Trump’s life.
The defense argued that Routh did not have the capacity to kill. Meaning, the mere planning of something is not enough to prove the intent of committing a crime. Additionally, they asserted that if Routh had the intent to kill Trump or even the Secret Service agent, he would have pulled the trigger, since he did not, the crime did not occur, according to the defense. In the closing argument, the defense tried to persuade the jury that it was not in the defendant’s heart to kill the President.
After the verdict was read, Routh reacted horrifically by attempting to stab himself in the neck with a pen, and he was removed from the courtroom.
Routh’s daughter Sara was in the courtroom, and as he was being escorted out, she shouted, “Dad, I love you. Don’t do anything. I will get you out.” Routh was returned to the courtroom, escorted by court marshals and in shackles and was informed he would be sentenced on Dec.18.