Trump assassination attempt suspect Ryan Routh questions first witnesses as case nears its final stage

The federal case against Ryan Routh, the man accused of attempting to assassinate former President Donald Trump at his West Palm Beach golf club in 2024, moved toward its closing phase Monday as Routh, who is representing himself, indicated he would not take the stand. He faces charges that include attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer, and possession of a firearm, among other crimes. If convicted, he could face life in prison. Judge Aileen Cannon pressed Routh for a decision on whether to testify, but the defendant said he was sure he would not.

Routh opened his defense by calling a single gun expert, Michael McClay, followed by testimony from a family friend and a former colleague. McClay, an expert in sniper firearms and tactics with a long career in military and law enforcement, testified that he had been subpoenaed to appear and did not want to appear on Routh’s behalf. He spent much of the session examining the operability of the rifle in question and whether it could reliably strike a target 375 yards away, a point the prosecution later pressed during cross-examination. McClay acknowledged that the rifle could hit a distant target, depending on the shooter’s skill. When asked about an exit strategy for a sniper if a plan went awry, he said, “in all his missions, there was some way to escape.”

Routh’s witness list was notably sparse compared with the prosecution’s: prosecutors called dozens of witnesses over nearly two weeks, including forensic specialists, FBI agents, and Secret Service personnel, who detailed digital and physical evidence tying Routh to the alleged gun purchase and to locations near Trump International Golf Club in the weeks leading up to the incident. By contrast, Routh’s side offered three witnesses of personal note and one expert, with much of the defense’s earlier material deemed inadmissible. The defense has indicated it will rest its case without presenting additional evidence unless the court allows changes to the exhibits on the docket, which include books authored by Routh, handwritten drawings, and Eagle Scout awards from his childhood.

A sketch of courtroom activity during the trial is shown in coverage of the proceedings. The defense’s strategy — a sparse lineup of witnesses and limited exhibits — stands in contrast to the sprawling body of evidence amassed by prosecutors.

Prosecutors laid out a broad, data-driven case, presenting hundreds of exhibits and a long sequence of witnesses in which they traced cellphone records, license-plate data, and surveillance footage to place Routh at or near critical moments before and after the alleged attempt. They also offered extensive digital and forensic evidence. FBI officials testified last week that Routh’s DNA was found on the scope grip of the rifle, on a glove, a bungee cord, and a bag recovered from the so‑called “sniper’s nest” near the sixth hole where he waited for the president’s arrival.

The government’s final witness, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Kimberly McGreevy, drove home the volume of digital footprints tying Routh to Trump’s movements in the weeks before the alleged attempt. Jurors heard about text messages, call logs, and extensive cell-site data, along with vehicle and facial-recognition data that prosecutors said placed Routh near the golf club during the relevant window. Prosecutors argued these records, when combined with physical evidence from the scene, corroborated the government’s theory that Routh planned and executed the attempted attack.

The defense, meanwhile, did not indicate it would present evidence of its own beyond its three witnesses. If no rebuttal witnesses are called by the defense, the case could move relatively quickly toward closing arguments and then juror deliberations. The judge is expected to rule on any last-minute requests to admit or challenge exhibits, a point of ongoing contention as Cannon has overseen a number of evidentiary rulings during the trial.

The proceedings have unfolded in Fort Pierce, Florida, with the federal government pressing a wartime‑style investigative narrative: a patchwork of digital breadcrumbs, surveillance records, and forensic findings that collectively connect Routh to the alleged plot. The defense’s approach — focusing on the limitations of the rifle and the shooter’s capabilities — has emphasized questions of intent and feasibility, attempting to cast reasonable doubt on whether the weapon could have produced the harm authorities allege.

The case sits at a crossroads of U.S. politics and national security, given that the target was a presidential candidate at the center of a fraught political moment. While the trial centers on criminal technicalities and evidentiary standards, its implications extend to how law enforcement and the judiciary handle potential threats against political figures in the contemporary era. As closing arguments approach, observers will watch for any final motions on admissibility, potential appellate issues, and how jurors weigh forensic data against testimony from lay witnesses and experts.

If convicted on the counts charged, Routh could face life in prison. The defense has sought to limit the government’s narrative through methodical cross-examinations of the expert witnesses and a restrained presentation of its own witnesses, a strategy the court has allowed to proceed in stages as the defense contends with the volume of material that prosecutors amassed over the trial’s duration.

The timeline of proceedings continues to unfold this week, with jurors awaiting final deliberations. The next stage hinges on whether the defense completes its presentation, and whether prosecutors call any rebuttal witnesses. Whatever the outcome, the case has already underscored the way American courts address the intersection of crime, politics, and security in a high-stakes public arena.