What if Trump refuses to leave the White House?

Trump was playing golf outside of Washington when Biden’s election victory was confirmed on November 7.

Shortly after, the defeated candidate’s campaign issued a statement guaranteeing that “the election is far from over.”

“We all know why Joe Biden is quick to misrepresent himself as the winner and why his media allies are doing their best to try to help him: they don’t want the truth to be known,” the statement said, indicating that Trump would continue opposing the announced result through lawsuits, alleging the existence of an alleged fraud.

The Constitution of the United States is clear, without a doubt, in stating that the current presidential term ends “at noon on January 20.”

Joe Biden managed to win in several states that guaranteed him more than 270 votes in the Electoral College. Therefore, he has the right to hold the presidency for the next four years.

Donald Trump has legal and legitimate resources that he can still use to challenge the outcome of the vote.

But unless there is a dramatic turnaround in the courts from now on and he can prove in court the existence of irregularities in the election he alleges, although he does not provide evidence, January 20 is the date on which the new president takes office – and in which Trump must resign.

Trump was clear throughout the current campaign in warning that he would not accept defeat.

He repeatedly said that he was determined to stay in command, regardless of what the electoral authorities said, indicating that the only chance of losing would be if the elections were stolen.

For this reason, the country began to discuss what would happen if Trump carried out his threat and tried to cling to power by force.

A hypothesis even commented on by Joe Biden himself when he was a candidate.

In a televised interview on June 11, comedian Trevor Noah asked Biden if he had considered the possibility that a losing Trump might refuse to vacate the presidential residence.

“Yes, I thought about it,” Biden replied, adding that he was convinced that, in such a situation, the military would take care to prevent him from remaining in office and would simply expel him from the White House.

It was also said that the Secret Service could fulfill the task of escorting Trump out of the presidential residence.

This civil organization, in charge of the president’s security, also has a legal obligation to protect all former presidents and will continue to accompany him from January 20.

When Biden’s electoral advantage became apparent and the announcement of his victory seemed imminent, the Secret Service stepped up measures to protect the president-elect, effectively beginning to give him a “presidential” level of security, although Trump did not acknowledge defeat.

But at that point, it would be necessary to assess loyalty to this president of the security forces, as well as analysts seeking to understand the situation of any country at a time of institutional instability.

BBC News Mundo, the BBC’s Spanish-language news service, asked experts if it was feasible for Trump to try to use the state’s security forces to remain in power illegally.

“For a president to abuse the powers of the presidency to stay in office after apparently losing the election would be difficult and would destroy vital rules. But it is not inconceivable,” says Professor Dakota Rudesill, an expert on national security policy and legislation. from Ohio. United States State University.

“This would greatly damage the country, the important principles of civil-military relations and the global prospects for democracy,” he warns.

However, he clarifies that, in his opinion, the scenario in which Trump could cling to the presidency with the support of the security forces is difficult to imagine.

“The military swears allegiance to the Constitution, not to the politician in office. And who is the highest ranking military officer in the country at this time, General Mark Milley, chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces, has said repeatedly that the army will have no role in this election. “

Rudesill is not the only one asking these questions. Keisha Blaine is a professor at the University of Pittsburgh and an expert on social protest movements.

“The simple fact that we have to ask ourselves if the Armed Forces are going to intervene in the elections reveals a lot about the sad situation in our country,” laments BBC News Mundo.

Blaine adds that “four years ago, most Americans weren’t asking that. But seeing Trump send federal agents (during the recent turmoil) to Portland and Washington in recent months is a serious concern. I don’t think this is a scenario probably, but we can’t rule it out as a serious possibility, considering everything that happened this year. “

Indeed, during the social protests that erupted with the anti-racism movement in the middle of the year, Trump considered mobilizing the military to disperse the demonstrations.

On June 5, the American newspaper New York Times said General Milley “persuaded Trump not to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to mobilize regular troops across the country to suppress protests, a line that several U.S. Army officials have said they will not cross, even if the President orders do it. “

In the end, faced with the refusal of the regular Army to get involved, Trump sent troops from the National Guard, who depend on the governors of each state, to contain the protests.

Members of the non-military security forces reporting to the Ministry of Homeland Security also participated in containing the protests in Washington, Portland and other cities.

Thus, some contemplate that, in an electoral crisis, Trump could order the mobilization of a series of non-military armed personnel.

However, assuming that the Armed Forces would not make themselves available to the president, it is difficult to imagine a successful move by Trump to remain in power under these conditions.

Rudesill says he is concerned about related scenarios.

“I wrote about the possibility of President Trump trying to use an executive order, or the Justice Department controlled by his political allies trying to issue a ‘guideline’, stating that the executive branch should consider Trump the winner of an election in dispute”. , says the expert to BBC News Mundo, but warns that it would be “totally inappropriate and inadmissible.”

“Ordering the army to continue saluting the president beyond the end of his term at noon on January 20 would put the army in an impossible situation,” he says.

Analysts say that a situation in which the defeated candidate in the presidential elections refuses to accept the result could create “the possibility of serious civil unrest.”

“Half the country and many people around the world would think that the US military has taken a partisan position. The military should never, ever be given that order,” says Rudesill.

And without reaching the extreme case of a situation in which the autonomy of the Armed Forces is at stake in the face of partisan disputes, others warn that a prolongation of the current political situation can generate violence in other fields.

A situation in which the defeated candidate in the presidential elections refuses to accept the result undoubtedly leads to “the possibility of serious civil unrest,” Keisha Blaine tells BBC News Mundo.

The presidential rhetoric “has increased the possibility of protests and even violence,” he argues.

The situation witnessed in different American cities in recent months, from armed protesters to the teeth expressing their support for the president, as well as the appearance on the streets of these same cities of radical opposition groups, are a reminder of the potential for violence that bring the current. political tension in the United States.