Humanities desk
< September 10	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 11

Who would be responsible to remove an unwilling Trump?

Since about a year we have been seeing more and more people raising concerns that Trump may refuse to abdicate the presidency if he incurs an electoral defeat in 2020. Some politicians like Pelosi have nonchalantly disavowed such concerns and put their unassailable faith in the American system of government, while others like Biden have echoed them and Sanders even considers crafting legal precautions.

My question is, which apparently has no been addressed by any politician or news media so far, which government agency would be responsible to accompany Trump out of the White House if he physically insists to remain. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Service would physically remove him from the White House like they would with any other trespasser. Once Inauguration Day comes, unless he's been reelected by the Electoral College he's no longer the President. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The agents of the Secret Service must follow the orders of the Director, a Trump appointee after a shake-up. The latter operates under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, currently vacant, but the acting Secretary, a staunch Trump supporter, is a designated Trump appointee whose legality is disputed after the position became vacant through another shake-up. Who in the line of authority will then step forward and categorize the present Occupant as a tresspasser and give the order to remove them? --Lambiam 23:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Biden wins, he'll be in position to re-fill those positions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know, that wasn't the question OP asked. I don't think it really matters. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely what I was thinking. It is naive to believe that these officials will remove their appointer, ally, and (former) superior. Biden may be legally empowered to replace them once inaugurated, but I believe that trump will not even allow for a transition to occur. I mean does anyone here genuinely think that Trump will sit down with Biden for more than two month and quietly observe how his power vanishes? Colonestarrice (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is "deep state"-tier reasoning. That is, it's tantamount to believing the same nonsense about career federal employees working to undermine the Presidency. The people within the executive branch all have their own lives they care about, and would benefit not one whit by assisting Trump in unlawfully occupying the White House after the end of his presidency. Beyond that you're saying "What if there's a coup?" If that's your question, I would refer you to articles about historical coups d'état, because the resolution of an American one would certainly mirror those historical ones. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A coup d'etat attempt by Trump would likely result in the American people forcefully removing him--if necessary, through outright revolution--just like Ukrainians previously removed Yanukovych in 2014 through the Maidan Revolution. Futurist110 (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If his coup d'etat is successful, he would command the world's most powerful military by far and various critical federal law enforcement agencies. Additionally, he would be backed by millions of his gun-loving cultists. So it does not look particularly good for the other side. Colonestarrice (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most Trump appointees are Trump loyalists and not career employees. They have a lot to loose if the Trump presidency is over – but what if there has been fraud on an unprecedented scale with mail-in voting, with many hundreds of thousands of returned ballots filled out by dogs, dead people, and illegal aliens. Which candidate won the election, and therefore whether the Trump presidency is over, may still be actively being contested by legal and extra-legal means. I may think it is over, you may think it is over, but will they think it is over? --Lambiam 21:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, if the question is "What if there's a coup?" my response is to refer to any number of articles on historical coups d'état. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you summarize what we are supposed to learn from that? Some dictators (e.g. Nicolae Ceaușescu, Adolf Hitler, Augustus, Julius Caesar; I bet there are plenty of others) originally came to power in a regular process, but once in power consolidated their position to the point where they could not be ousted through a democratic process. They usurped powers in an unconstitutional way, but no High Court was going to rule against them. At no time did this drift into authoritarianism involve a step considered a coup. --Lambiam 20:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it’s appropriate to respond given the question deals more with recommendations and value judgments than straightforward questions of legal responsibility (which is what the OP’s original question addressed). As this question has been asked and answered I think it would be appropriate for this thread to be closed before someone unintentionally breaches WP:ARBAPDS. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original question was about responsibility. Your answer given to the question was, on the face of it, not about legal responsibility. It took the form of a prediction about the factual course of events, should a certain contingency arise. Among the possible scenarios, there is certainly the possibility that the responsible people will behave responsibly under these unprecedented circumstances, but given that a certain party, who hgas appointed loyalists in key positions, is then apparently behaving extremely irresponsibly, this should not be taken for granted. Indeed, as you may have seen, the consideration of various scenarios has become a major topic in the mainstream media, and these scenarious include irregular behaviour by various formally responsible high-ranking officers (without indulging in conspiracy theories involving a deep state). Theory is one thing, the world we find ourselves in is another thing. For that reason, I thought it necessary to add a note to your answer pointing out that the situation might not be resolved as smoothly as your answer suggested. --Lambiam 11:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Remember WP:BLP. Anyway if a president doesn't allow a transition team to be involved, that's unfortunate and it may make the transition rougher. However ultimately many countries with varying systems are able to deal with fairly abrupt transitions. The US if anything seems better placed than even a number that do deal with them. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not abdication. The Orange One isn't a monarch. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that, I chose the term 1) since he's not so far away from being one 2) for the sake of eloquence and humorous exaggeration. Colonestarrice (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see Arnold Schwarzenegger go into the Oval Office and tell him, "You're fired!" Clarityfiend (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are getting into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory here. It was fine to ask who would be responsible for removing someone from the White House (answer: Secret Service)... but we cross the line when we share our opinions on whether this might or might not actually happen. Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've all fallen into his trap. The thing he likes most of all is having people talk about him. It matters not whether it's positive or negative commentary. It's exactly the same strategy that babies use to get what they need. Attention is the only thing that matters. So, he says he might not accept the result of the election. Obediently, millions of tongues start wagging in earnest consideration of the legal and constitutional ramifications. He's got you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if he reads Wikipedia, or if he has his little people do that for him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see a scenario where Biden or Trump is certified the winner of the election by the Electoral College, and the other one refuses to get out of the way. A post-election-day dispute is more likely to involve legal battles over the votes in various states, with the idea of each trying to stop the other guy's electors (electoral college appointees) from getting certified: something like the 2000 Florida recount but maybe in multiple states at the same time, maybe with more riots, and that sort of thing. If the electoral college doesn't certify a winner, there are various paths from there: election decided by the House of Representatives (whatever its makeup is after January 1); goes to Speaker of the House (I remember something about Pelosi stepping down from this post next term, so someone else would get it next); then goes to President Pro Tem of the Senate (traditionally the senior member of the majority party, but that is not a law), etc. There is a scenario someone gamed out someplace where the entire November election is either cancelled or voided outright. In that case, the President, VP, and all the House of Representatives terms expire, along with 1/3 of the Senators' terms, so all those offices are vacant. The President pro tem (and therefore POTUS) post would apparently go to Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) in that situation (based on identifying exactly which Senators remained after the expirations). But Leahy is pretty old and maybe could be convinced to not take the job. So there would be jockying over the Pres. pro tem post, with the person claiming it's likely that the more energetic and ambitious Sen. Chuck Schumer would end up snagging it. It is pretty far out there though. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrumph. The Electoral College does not certify anything. It never even meets. Its members meet in each state and the voting results are sent to the Senate, which adds them up and certifies the results. See the 12th Amendment, first two paragraphs. --174.88.168.23 (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Pet Leahy and similar analysis of expiring Senator terms etc has been considered in several places including some mostly looking at it from a legal standpoint [1] [2]. While I agree it's fairly far out there, I think it is an interest analysis in so much as many people who've considered the "cancelling presidential election" angle say even if it is possible, Trump wouldn't still be president next year but ignore that as unlikely as cancelling the presidential election may seem, cancelling the presidential election while simultaneously still running the Congressional ones seems even more unlikely. Of course taking it further, you then have to consider whether the governor's can appoint senators to fill the vacant seats etc, and therefore who these governor's are likely to be. Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a rather simple solution: in the event of a disagreement over who really is POTUS, make me the interim POTUS. As a Canadian, everyone knows I will be polite and easy to get along with and will be most fair as the disagreement works its way out! Given how long that will likely take, it will give me time to access my resources and solidify my base. In that way I can ensure my power and make America Canada's 11th Province . . . 69.42.176.50 (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]