Trump’s self-dealing reshapes politics beyond stolen money

rule-by-personal-favor replacing – In actions spanning an IRS settlement, a personalized “anti-weaponization” fund, stock trading timing, and profits tied to World Liberty Financial, Donald Trump’s presidency is being portrayed as moving U.S. governance toward decisions driven by personal acces

For the past week, the newest revelations around Donald Trump’s conduct have landed with a particular sting: they don’t just fit a familiar story about a politician taking advantage of office. They point to a deeper shift in how decisions are made—and who benefits.

Trump created a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” supervised solely by him, as part of what was described as a “settlement” for a bogus lawsuit against the IRS. As part of that same settlement, he formally immunized himself, his family, and his business interests from IRS audits.

Around the same time, the pattern of profit by proximity to power was laid out in stark terms. Trump made 3. 700 stock trades in the first quarter of this year. with trades often happening just before a major policy decision affecting the companies in his trades. The Trump family, meanwhile, has made $1.55 billion from its crypto vehicle World Liberty Financial since late 2024.

Taken together, critics say, the behavior is more than ordinary corruption. They argue Trump is attempting to transform the operating logic of American politics—from an order structured by rule of law toward one where major decisions ultimately come down to whether you have the personal favor of the president.

That framing turns the focus away from any single scandal and toward the underlying rules of the system itself. In their book *Violence and Social Orders*, political scientists Douglass C. North, John Joseph Wallis, and Barry R. Weingast describe two broad categories of political systems: the “natural state” and the “open access state.” In their depiction. natural states tend to revolve around self-serving elites and rent-seeking. where justice is less about neutral enforcement and more about dispensations tied to personal relationships within the ruling group. In open access orders. by contrast. access to power is determined primarily by formal rules that apply to everyone. allowing people to challenge entrenched interests.

The core claim being advanced is that Trump’s conduct and policy approach align more closely with the first model than the second. Trump has bent the powers of office toward personal profit in ways described as “extraordinarily blatant. ” critics say—treating the presidency. in their view. like a personal fiefdom.

The argument extends beyond business. It points to the Justice Department. where it says Trump has worked to strip its traditional independence and turn it into a tool for pursuing his interests. including prosecuting political enemies on “flimsy pretexts.” It also cites taxation decisions described as granting tariff exemptions to countries and companies that curry favor directly with Trump.

It further describes regulation as another channel for personalization—specifically through the Federal Communications Commission and its chair. Brendan Carr. being encouraged to try to censor comedians who mock the president. In the U.S. military. the account says Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been deputized to fire generals deemed politically unreliable. “these generally happen to be women or racial minorities. ” according to the source.

Even foreign policy is presented as part of the same shift. with a description of a “neo-royalist” approach that mixes personal and public interests and favors ruling cliques over the public writ large. And in a detail that underscores how far the claim reaches. the piece points to the Department of Transportation: it says Secretary Sean Duffy used his office as an excuse to go on a family road trip funded by direct donations from Toyota and Boeing.

Many of these actions are described as authoritarian because they attack rights and freedoms needed for fair and healthy political competition. But the wider thrust is that even the “ordinary” corruption—profit drawn from holding power—works to erode an essential impersonal logic of American governance. replacing it with a system of government by personal access and rent-seeking.

That shift, the piece warns, changes incentives in ways that ripple through the economy and society. Over the next few years. corporate America and the legal world are said to understand that success with the White House won’t come primarily from making a persuasive case on substantive or even political grounds. Instead, the argument is that influence will be secured by bribes and flattery aimed at decision-makers, especially the president himself. If someone can make him richer or even feel important. critics say. they become exponentially more likely to get the payout or regulation they might otherwise have pursued through normal channels.

In the account of similar transitions elsewhere. the consequences are described as severe: growth stagnates as connections replace profits. public services degrade as they are administered to enrich administrators. and even arts and culture suffer. The narrative draws a comparison to countries such as Hungary to argue that these patterns can lead to economic disaster.

It also leans on the same book’s description of how open-access systems differ from natural states in the administration of laws. In open access orders. the discussion says. legislation provides specifics for how programs are administered. and rule-of-law courts can impose penalties on the executive for failing to implement laws as written. In natural states. it says. corrupt courts do not constrain the executive and legislatures may avoid detailed limits. leaving the executive wide freedom to allocate funds as desired.

The piece stops short of predicting a direct. sweeping rewriting of programs such as Social Security so that only Republicans receive payments. arguing that U.S. welfare structures are too strong in their open-access form for that kind of immediate change. Instead. it points to smaller areas where officials may have more discretion—such as turning disaster relief into a political favor doled out to red states.

The question hanging over the reporting is less about whether every outcome will look like an outright takeover. The warning is that the systems may blend: integrating natural state logic into institutions still nominally built on open-access principles. The result. the argument says. would be profound—not because a grand overthrow is guaranteed. but because the incentives and constraints that keep power tethered to law begin to weaken.

The final picture offered is stark. Trump wants to rule without constraint. to turn the presidency into an office where policy can be decided on “whim and personal interest.” In doing so. the source argues. he is breaking a fundamental part of the American social order—an element that underpins nearly every aspect of how society functions. The consequences are framed as impossible to fully predict. but “little doubt” is expressed that they would be profound. even if Trump experiences a major defeat in the 2026 midterms.

Donald Trump corruption IRS settlement anti-weaponization fund stock trades World Liberty Financial rule of law Justice Department FCC Brendan Carr Pete Hegseth Sean Duffy Toyota Boeing politics