I tend to think that he would be sent to a minimum security facility and separated from the general population. In an environment like that, it would take minimal secret service protection.
How badly would you need to fuck up to be assigned as Trump’s prison-minder?
I seem to remember that Ronald Reagan still had the regular secret service protection given to all ex-presidents…even after he became totally senile and confined to an old-age home.
I would also suspect that if it did reach that point, there would be a high likelihood that he would be sentenced to house arrest, since that would be easier for everyone involved.
This raises the question: can the President be impeached after their term has ended? Since impeachment can lead to removal from office and/or prohibition from holding office again, it’s logically possible to impeach and bar a former President from holding office again. But it’s not clear to me if it’s legally possible.
The President is no longer President after the term. Why would Congress have power over someone who is not an officer of the United States?
The entire spectrum of outcome of an impeachment is removal from office, or not removal from office.
Not an answer to impeachment but the Senate has ruled that it can still hold the trial even if the person has left office specifically because the person can be prohibited from holding office again.
Let’s be realistic. An (ex)president is not going to end up in the general population of some “drop the soap in the shower” prison or like an episode of Orange Is The New Black; at the very least he or she will end up in Club Fed (“sorry, Martha left years ago, but we do have some other distinguished guests; horseback riding is at 3PM”). They will have a nice room or wing, assorted amenities and protection from any other guest who wants to go down in history and has nothing left to lose over the next 30 years to life. Presumably that protection will be Secret Service rather than a coterie of Aryan Nation thugs or whatever is normal in other prisons…
Unless his or her successor is a narrow-minded SOB who has it in for them…
I hope you appreciate the irony of using the “SS” abbreviation. 
This is not true, as has already been pointed out. The outcome can also include being barred from holding any other position.
Trump would become a ward of the state, the state would assume responsibility for him. Not seeing how the SS would be needed here. (and yes SS, deal with it)
Reagan died at his own home in CA. He could afford to have really good care at home so he did not need to go to a nursing home.
Since nothing like this has ever happened nor was ever really contemplated by the relevant statutes and regulations, I doubt there is a real GQ answer. My informed hunch is that it would not end with armed Secret Service agents running around a prison protecting the former president.
Under the relevant statute, 18 USC 3056 (18 U.S. Code § 3056 - Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute), the Secret Service is authorized to provide lifetime protection to former presidents. Nothing in there says that they are obligated to protect former presidents. By my reading of the statute and considering general principles of constitutional law, either the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Director of the Secret Service could decide not to protect any former president.* I believe that if a former president were sentenced to jail, one of those three people would likely suspend Secret Service protection for the duration of the sentence. No need to imagine any ridiculous hypotheticals.
- If the Secret Service’s budget appropriation required the agency to spend a certain amount of money protecting a certain former president, then the agency would actually be obligated to do it, but I doubt that the agency’s appropriation is that specific about how its budget must be used. At most, I suspect the budget says that the Secret Service has $X dollars to spend on protection of former presidents, which they may generally use as they see fit. Feel free to prove me wrong. Even if this were the case, I doubt congress would, in subsequent budgets, appropriate a ton of money to protect a guy who is already in jail.
There is also no particular definition of what Secret Service protection requires. We think of Secret Service protection as including an armed entourage and whatnot, but it doesn’t have to. The Secret Service is authorized to carry firearms but again, they aren’t obligated to do so. Secret Service protection could be redefined for an incarcerated former president to include nothing more than a monthly phone call from a Secret Service agent to the prison where he is whiling away his time. Exapno Mapcase’s idea also seems very plausible. Since, understandably, the Secret Service doesn’t really talk a lot about their methods of protecting the president, they could effectively cut off meaningful protection to the incarcerated former president while still maintaining the polite fiction that he still has it.
The issue of whether a sitting president can be prosecuted by the Department of Justice is very controversial. I won’t share my opinion, but I think this is a pretty good discussion of the topic without getting too far into the weeds.
I suspect he’d have a wing to himself in some low-security Federal prison, for ease of providing security and to keep him from being shivved in the general population. USSS (I prefer that acronym, given the obvious connotations of the shorter one) agents aren’t corrections officers and I doubt they’d want to function as such.
Correct. This might also be of interest: Is the Secret Service responsible for keeping the president from getting drunk? - The Straight Dope
Then there’s the seepage problem.
Okay - something *slightly *more plausible:
Let’s say Bernie Sanders becomes the Dem nominee in 2020. In an effort to bring his activist past back to the spotlight, he takes part in a rally that gets out of hand. Bernie is arrested in a jurisdiction which chooses (for whatever reason) to not give him any deferential treatment. He is sent to lockup. Bernie demands that he be allowed the SS protection provided by Title 18 U.S.C. 3056(a)(7).
Bernie is obviously going to make bail, but he’s still going to be in holding for a period of time which is not zero. Is the SS allowed to accompany him? Can they require the local cops to provide access? Can they require the local cops to treat him in a particular manner?
Basically, does section (d) override local authority?
The Supremacy Clause says yes.
Slight tangent: JFK’s USSS contingent took his remains from Parkland Hospital in Dallas over the objections of the local coroner and cops, who argued that it was a Texas murder and that the President was required to have an autopsy there. It was a tense situation, by all accounts.
Slate doesn’t have any better idea about what would happen than we do, although they speculate as we did that the Secret Service might just delegate responsibility to the corrections officials, maintain a low-profile presence at the prison, or that the rules might be changed to eliminate secret service protection for a prisoner.
Let’s consider the possibility the USSS might work out something with the US Marshals Service. And while a sitting POTUS might not be able to be prosecuted, if he were impeached and convicted he’d be an Ex-POTUS and could be prosecuted for all sorts of stuff. I wonder how some people might fare during and after a thorough RICO investigation of all his business affairs.