In November 2017, federal authorities uncovered a plot by a man from North Dakota who allegedly planned to assassinate President Donald J. Trump during his visit to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in the Philippines. The would-be assassin, described as mentally unstable and obsessed with presidential security schedules, had traveled internationally with weapons and expressed a clear intent to kill the president. Though thwarted before he could carry out the plan, the case underscored the enduring threat posed by lone-wolf actors—even against a sitting U.S. president on foreign soil.
Political and Social Context
By late 2017, Donald Trump’s presidency was a year old and deeply polarizing. His rhetoric on immigration, trade, and global diplomacy had alienated some traditional allies while energizing nationalist and populist movements. Domestically, the nation remained sharply divided, and Trump’s first year was marked by fierce partisan clashes, protests, and heated debate over presidential legitimacy.
International travel presented security challenges, particularly in regions with unstable political climates or where anti-American sentiment ran high. The Philippines, led by controversial President Rodrigo Duterte, was one such stop. Security for Trump’s Asia tour—covering Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam, and the Philippines—was extremely tight, but concerns about threats from both foreign terrorists and homegrown actors persisted.
The Plot
The would-be assassin was identified as Ryan Clayton, a U.S. citizen from Dickinson, North Dakota. Clayton posted a series of threatening messages on social media, declaring his intent to assassinate President Trump during his overseas tour. He specifically mentioned plans to travel to the Philippines and claimed he had the means and will to carry out the assassination during Trump’s APEC summit appearance in Manila.
Clayton was reportedly obsessed with anti-government conspiracy theories and displayed signs of mental illness. He had made previous threats and had drawn the attention of federal authorities prior to the incident. His posts, made on platforms such as Facebook, included phrases like “I’m going to take Trump out,” and “This is the sacrifice I have to make for the greater good.”
Timeline
- Early November 2017: Secret Service and FBI monitor threatening posts referencing President Trump and his APEC trip.
- November 6, 2017: Clayton is intercepted at an airport while attempting to leave the U.S. for Asia.
- November 7–8, 2017: He is detained and questioned by federal agents, who find additional threats and documents indicating travel plans to the Philippines.
- November 10, 2017: President Trump arrives in Manila under heightened security.
- November 14, 2017: Clayton is charged with threats against the president and detained in federal custody.
The Assassination Attempt
Clayton never reached the Philippines, and no physical attempt was made on Trump’s life. However, his clear intent, online confessions, and actions in preparing for international travel during the president’s scheduled trip were deemed credible by federal investigators.
According to court documents, Clayton told agents that he wanted to “be a martyr” and that killing Trump would “save the country.” He also indicated that he had studied Trump’s travel itinerary and had plans to gain proximity to the president during his public appearances abroad.
Though he lacked the logistical sophistication or direct access necessary to carry out the attempt, Clayton’s case was treated as a serious threat. The Secret Service cited it as an example of the growing danger posed by ideologically driven lone actors with mental health issues and access to digital platforms.
Immediate Aftermath
The arrest received limited media coverage, in part due to the lack of a physical confrontation and because the incident was swiftly neutralized before President Trump arrived in the Philippines. Still, it prompted increased scrutiny of threats made online and further solidified concerns that social media had become a vector for radicalization and threat projection.
Security during the remainder of Trump’s Asia tour remained at peak levels. While Trump did not publicly address the incident, his administration praised the coordinated efforts of federal and international partners to ensure the president’s safety.
Investigation and Arrests
Clayton was charged in federal court with threatening the life of the president of the United States, a serious felony offense. Investigators found that he had no formal ties to extremist groups, but his social media posts, personal writings, and interrogation responses revealed deep psychological instability and a pattern of threatening behavior.
He reportedly had a prior record involving minor offenses and had previously received mental health treatment, though inconsistently. Law enforcement emphasized that Clayton’s threats were not idle: he had taken actionable steps toward executing his plan.
Trial and Legal Proceedings
Clayton’s legal proceedings focused heavily on his mental health status. His defense attorneys argued that he was not competent to stand trial, citing his delusional beliefs and erratic behavior. After evaluations, he was deemed unfit for trial and was committed to a federal mental health facility.
As of 2020, Clayton remained under psychiatric care, with court proceedings suspended pending further mental competency assessments. His case remains an example of how federal courts handle assassination threats involving mental illness, often opting for long-term hospitalization over criminal sentencing.
Punishments and Legacy of the Conspirator
Because Clayton was ruled incompetent, he was never formally convicted or sentenced. However, his detention and commitment to psychiatric care effectively removed him as a threat. His case added to a growing body of examples showing how digital platforms can be used to plan and publicize violent intentions—sometimes before law enforcement has time to intervene.
Clayton’s legacy is largely a cautionary tale: a mentally ill individual radicalized by conspiracy thinking, given a global platform through social media, and nearly able to carry out a political assassination abroad. It illustrates the blurry line between unstable ideology and criminal action.
Long-Term Impact on the Nation
Though overshadowed by other events in late 2017, the Clayton case had implications for both domestic security and Secret Service protocol. The Secret Service intensified monitoring of social media threats and expanded partnerships with the FBI’s Behavioral Threat Assessment program.
The case also reinforced the necessity of robust interagency coordination—particularly when a U.S. president travels abroad. In an age of instantaneous communication, lone actors can plan cross-border attempts from virtually anywhere.
Finally, the case added momentum to calls for mental health reform and more proactive intervention strategies for individuals exhibiting violent ideation toward public officials.
Controversies and Conspiracy Theories
Given the limited media attention, few conspiracy theories surrounded the incident. Some online commentators questioned why the story received less coverage than other high-profile threats, alleging media bias or a desire to downplay anti-Trump sentiment.
However, no credible claims of cover-up or foul play emerged. Law enforcement agencies were transparent about the case’s basic facts and followed standard legal and psychiatric procedures.
Primary Source Appendix
- U.S. Department of Justice press releases (November–December 2017)
- FBI and Secret Service affidavits filed in federal court
- Federal court documents from U.S. v. Clayton (2017–2020)
- Media coverage from Reuters, CNN, The Hill, and NBC News
- Statements from the U.S. Secret Service regarding international threat response protocols
- Behavioral analysis reports from the FBI’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime
- Congressional briefings on presidential security during overseas travel (2018)