2020 US election: what if Trump refuses to leave the White House?

In the 244-year history of the United States, no president has refused to leave the White House after losing an election.

The peaceful, legal, and orderly transfer of power is one of the hallmarks of American democracy.

For this reason, President Donald Trump’s refusal to accept the defeat of Joe Biden created a novel situation and turned the United States upside down.

And it poses a challenge for analysts to consider impossible scenarios.

Trump is playing golf outside the capital of Washington DC when Biden was named the winner of the November 7 election by major US media.

Soon after, the presidential campaign issued a statement emphasizing that “the election is far from over.”

“We all know why Joe Biden is in a hurry to pretend to be a winner, and why his media allies are trying to help him: they don’t want the truth exposed.” Trump announced. “The simple fact is that this election is far from over,” he continued, showing that Trump will continue to oppose the results through trials, accusing the election of fraud.

The US Constitution makes it completely clear that the current presidency will end “at noon on January 20.”

Joe Biden has won enough states to ensure he gets more than the 270 electoral votes needed. Therefore, Mr. Biden has the right to serve as president for the next four years.

Donald Trump still has legitimate and legitimate resources that he can use to challenge the results of the vote, but unless there is a significant change in the courts in the near future, and only if Trump has been able to prove the electoral irregularities that he accused but not provided evidence that they actually existed, January 20 was the day the new president took office, the same day that Trump had to leave the White House.

Trump had clearly warned throughout the campaign that he would not accept defeat.

He repeatedly said that he was determined to stay in power, no matter what the electoral bodies said, pointing out that the only chance of failure is through stolen elections.

So the United States began to discuss what would happen if Trump threatened and tried to hold on to power.

This theory was even mentioned by Joe Biden during the elections.

In a television interview on June 11, comedian Trevor Noah asked Biden if he thought about the possibility of Trump losing and refusing to leave the presidential palace.

“Yes, I thought about that,” Biden responded, adding that he was convinced that, in such a situation, the military would be responsible for preventing Trump from continuing and simply kicking him out. The White House.

Biden’s insistence that voters, not candidates, decide the election outcome was confirmed in his campaign statement on Friday:

“The American people will decide this election, and the United States government is fully capable of escorting violators out of the White House,” the statement said.

The execution of the task of escorting Trump out of the presidential palace can be carried out by the United States Judicial Police or the Secret Service.

The Secret Service is the civilian agency in charge of the president’s security, but by law it also has an obligation to protect all former presidents and will continue to protect Trump even after January 20. .

When Biden’s electoral advantage became apparent and his proclamation of the winner was imminent, the Secret Service stepped up security measures to protect the president-elect.

Sure enough, Biden is being protected with the “president’s” level of security, despite Trump’s insistence that the Democrats are defeated.

If the worst outcome comes and Trump flatly refuses to leave the White House, the loyalty of the security forces to him may need to be considered.

The BBC asked experts if it was possible that Trump was trying to use national security forces to illegally seize power.

Professor Dakota Rudesill, an expert in national security policy and associated laws at Ohio State University in the United States, told the BBC:

“Letting a president abuse his powers to stay in power after losing the election will be difficult and will destroy important norms. But it is not unthinkable.”

“This will do great damage to the country, to the basic principles of the civil-military relationship and to the perspective of a world population,” he warned.

However, he made it clear that, from his point of view, the scenario of Trump clinging to the presidency thanks to the support of the security forces is unlikely.

“Soldiers swear allegiance to the constitution, not to commitment to the politician in power. And the current highest ranking military officer, General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The United States has repeatedly said that the military has no role to play in this election. “

Professor Rudesill is not the only one considering these issues. Keisha Blaine, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh and an expert on antisocial movements, told the BBC:

“The fact that we have to ask ourselves whether the Armed Forces will interfere in the elections reveals a lot of sadness for the state of our country.”

“Four years ago, most Americans did not question this. But when they saw Trump sending federal agents. [trong cuộc bạo loạn gần đây] in Portland and Washington in recent months, that has become a major concern. I don’t think this is a likely scenario, but we are not ruling it out because it is a serious possibility, considering everything that happened this year, “he added.

In fact, during the time that social protests with the anti-racist movement broke out in the middle of this year, Trump had been contemplating mobilizing troops to suppress the protests.

On June 5, the New York Times said that General Milley convinced Trump not to invoke the Anti-Rebellion Act of 1807 to mobilize active troops across the country to quell the protests.

It was “a line that some US military said they would not cross, even if the president ordered it.”

In the end, Trump ordered the use of the National Guard, which, on a case-by-case basis, could maneuver under the power of the president and / or governor of the state.

Members of the non-military security force who reported to the Department of Homeland Security also participated in containing protests in Washington, Portland, and other cities in the United States.

So some speculated that if an election crisis arose, Trump was likely to order the deployment of some non-military armed personnel.

However, with the assumption that the military cannot be put at the service of the president’s political intrigues, it is difficult to imagine that Trump will manage to remain in power.

Professor Rudesill expressed concern about relevant situations.

“I wrote about the possibility of President Trump trying to use the executive order or the Justice Department, which is controlled by his political allies, to try to issue ‘directives’, stating that the executive branch should consider Trump the winner of the disputed election, “the expert told the BBC, but cautioned that this was” completely inappropriate and unacceptable. “

“The order that the military continue to salute the president after his term ends at noon on January 20 puts the military in an impossible position,” he said.

“Half the United States and many people around the world will think that the US military, which is not political enough, has a partisan stance. The military can never, never obey that order,” said Professor Rudesill. .

And despite extreme cases in which military autonomy is challenged by partisan disputes, many others warn that the current political situation could provoke violence in other regions.

Keisha Blaine told the BBC that a situation in which a candidate fails in the presidential election but refuses to admit the outcome will likely lead to “serious civil unrest.”

He argued that the president’s eloquent rhetoric “increased the likelihood of demonstrations and even violence.”

Several cities in the United States have seen this situation in recent months, with hand-armed protesters expressing their support for the president, as well as street appearances by extreme opposition groups.

The weaponry of some of this group is a reminder of the potential violence contained in current political tensions within the United States.