By Cliff Potts
WPS.News
At the heart of American politics over the last decade has been a collision between raw power, ideological ambition, and the fragility of law. Figures who backed or enabled Donald Trump’s project—from political operatives to intellectual influencers to corporate patrons—now find themselves increasingly exposed to scrutiny, liability, and internal fracture. The magnitude of their criminally sourced wealth, the opacity of their networks, and the aggressiveness of their agendas make them both powerful and perilous. The real question: when the tides turn, will they deploy violence and subversion—or become victims of prosecution themselves?
This is not hyperbole. There is already evidence these players are taking their exit ramps, calculating risks, and preparing contingencies. As public pressure and legal momentum mount, we should expect trouble—not just from their defensive posturing, but from escapades of retaliation, sabotage, and political destabilization.
The Architecture of Risk: Who’s Exposed, and How
Political Operatives and Coup Engineers
Many of Trump’s closest allies already face serious legal jeopardy. Throughout the 2020–2024 period, figures involved in his efforts to overturn the election—including John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Jenna Ellis, and others—have been targets of investigations and indictments tied to fraudulent electors, falsified documents, and conspiracy charges. The House January 6 committee explicitly flagged funding flows and co-conspirator networks (Wikipedia, 2025).
When a presidential faction seeks to disable democratic institutions, its operatives inevitably leave paper trails: emails, financial transfers, meeting logs, communication metadata. That makes them vulnerable. Legal theories of conspiracy, racketeering, obstruction, or sedition become legitimate tools once the movement becomes a state in reverse.
Even in the best case, many such operators have been pardoned or insulated—but public pardon is not the same as immunity in civil suits, ethical sanctions, or exposure to future administrations willing to press charges.
Tech-Oligarchs, Intellectual Brokers, and Ideologues
Beyond operators are ideologues—the thinkers and financiers who provide the intellectual scaffolding. Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug) is one example: an author and influencer within the “neoreactionary” tech-fascist community who has long advocated post-democratic governance models. If public discourse or leaks continue to document plans for extralegal governance, these intellectual backers may come under scrutiny—not for mere speech but for ties to planning and facilitation (The New Yorker, 2025).
Their advantage is insulation: less direct accountability, fewer overt executive decisions. But that also makes them ideal scapegoats once political winds shift. The transition from plausible deniability to culpable enabler is subtle but real.
Institutional Enablers: Banking, Law Firms, Real Estate, and Infrastructure
The least-visible yet perhaps most dangerous enablers are the financial, legal, and real-estate infrastructures that serve such power consolidators. Banks that lavish loans, trusts that obscure beneficial ownership, shell companies, private equity networks, and law firms that defend illicit ventures—all are nodes in a system of patronage. When the crackdown comes, those nodes are as likely to be pulled as the visible figures.
Shutting funding sources, freezing assets, or subpoenaing transactional records will rip apart the ecosystem. The question is: will these enablers fight back—with paramilitary action, court wars, or sabotage of regulatory institutions?
Why Criminally Acquired Wealth Is Part of the Danger
The accumulation of illicit or semi-illicit wealth is not just a reward for political success—it’s a structural threat.
Obligation and leverage. Wealth derived from influence pacts, corruption, securities violations, or hidden favors often requires reciprocal protection. The money needs to be defended, the relationships secured, the reputations whitewashed. That creates chains of blackmail, loyalty, and mutual exposure.
Opacity and fragility. The more opaque the holdings—offshore trusts, shell companies, covert investments—the more vulnerable they are to forensic audit. Once one part of the house of cards falls, the rest becomes unstable.
Disincentive to retreat. Wealth tied to the political project becomes a trap. Withdrawal or moderation may threaten access or render them powerless. Thus, they may prefer escalation over compromise—doubling down rather than disarming.
Capacity for subversion. They have the resources—media platforms, digital tools, private militia networks, hacking capacity—to launch destabilizing efforts as insurance policies or diversions when prosecutions loom.
Hence, these individuals are not only at risk—they may proactively sow chaos to prevent accountability.
Forecasting the Likely Trouble: Strategies, Flashpoints, and Escalation Paths
Legal Escalation and Aggressive Defense
As new administrations or Congress seats shift, we should expect:
• Special prosecutors and IRS audits aimed at corruption and obstruction.
• Civil judgments and asset forfeiture targeting shell structures and trusts.
• Cross-border litigation and extradition actions for fugitives abroad.
These moves often coincide with media scrutiny, asset freezes, and blacklisting. The objective: make the cost of defense so high that retreat is forced.
Public Investigations, Leaks, and Political Exposure
Investigative journalism, whistleblowers, and partisan prosecutions will drive exposure. As internal memos, donor records, and meeting minutes surface, pressure builds. Even weak legal theories become dangerous when combined with reputational collapse and deplatforming.
Strategic Destabilization and Sabotage
If threatened deeply, actors may choose destabilization over capitulation:
• Institutional sabotage against judges, prosecutors, or agencies.
• Electoral disruption via intimidation of election officials.
• Paramilitary escalation or calls for “defensive militias.”
• Cyberattacks on data systems or communications to create chaos.
These are “insurance policies.” If accountability seems inevitable, they may foment chaos to delay or delegitimize it.
Flight and Exile
Some actors are already publicly discussing exit strategies. “I personally have to start thinking realistically about how to flee the country… everyone else… should have a 2029 plan,” Yarvin wrote (thenerdreich.com, 2025). That signals both fear and calculation: plan B is departure.
Why the Public Should Expect Trouble—and How to Counter It
Why Trouble Is Predictable
• Past behavior shows escalation over retreat.
• Prosecutors must win; elites only need to delay.
• Weak enforcement climate encourages defiance.
• Digital and paramilitary leverage magnify disruption.
Guardrails and Defense Strategy
- Strengthen independent institutions like courts and watchdogs.
- Maintain transparent accountability through audits and FOIA.
- Prevent vigilante or extrajudicial retaliation.
- Protect judges and prosecutors from threats (Reuters, 2024).
- Deplatform and freeze accounts linked to subversion.
- Apply disciplined, nonviolent public pressure through lawful channels.
Conclusion: The Balance Between Threat and Accountability
The Trump era has shown how political power and criminal exposure intertwine. The operatives, financiers, tech ideologues, and institutional enablers of the emerging techno-fascist project are not just morally hazardous—they’re legally fragile. As their dogma cracks under democratic pressure, their wealth and influence become vulnerabilities, not shields.
Yes, some may flee. Some may mount digital insurgencies. But the real battleground will be courts, congressional oversight, whistleblower leaks, and public institutions. If accountability is to succeed, it must be structured, lawful, and relentless.
They crossed a Rubicon by building power outside the law; now they must contend with the consequences. The more visible they are, the less room they have to hide.
References
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. (2025, February 5). Trump 2.0: Bracing for criminals, corruption and constitutional crises. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/trump-2-0-bracing-for-criminals-corruption-and-constitutional-crises
Portis, J. L. (2024). Interpreting obstruction: The Capitol riot & Donald Trump. Stanford Law Review Online. https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/interpreting-obstruction-the-capitol-riot-donald-trump
The Cases Against Trump: A Guide. (2025, January). The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/donald-trump-legal-cases-charges/675531
Judges in Trump-related cases face wave of threats. (2024, April 23). Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/default/judges-trump-related-cases-face-wave-threats-2024-04-23
Trump’s 88 criminal charges and where they stand. (2024). Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/trumps-91-criminal-charges-and-where-they-stand
Discover more from WPS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
WPS News 