Trump's Hostile Takeover
Five years after January 6, the coup that failed by violence has succeeded through institutional capture. America’s decline was not inevitable. It may now be irreversible.
Hello, Denyse here, and welcome to A Global Hinge Moment. We’re living through an extraordinary period of transformation - a rupture in the global order that will shape what comes next for generations. Here we track what’s happening, but more importantly, we look for where the hope is. Who are the purpose-led leaders building alternatives? And which strategies are working and can guide us through?
The Anniversary
6 January 2026
Five years ago today, a mob stormed the United States Capitol. They came to stop the certification of a presidential election. They failed. The certification proceeded. Joe Biden became president. The system held.
Or so it seemed.
Today, on the fifth anniversary of that assault, the man who incited it sits in the White House. Two days ago, his administration captured the president of Venezuela and declared the United States would “run” that country. His deputy chief of staff explained the governing philosophy: “We live in a world that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.”
The special counsel who spent years building cases against Donald Trump—cases that established, with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump “engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election”—gave his final testimony to Congress two weeks ago. The cases were dropped. Not because of innocence, but because court rulings prevent prosecution of a sitting president.
Jack Smith knew what was coming. “I am eyes wide open,” he told the House Judiciary Committee, “that this president will seek retribution against me if he can.”
The mob that stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021 wanted to prevent the transfer of power. They failed. But what they couldn’t achieve through violence has been achieved through other means. The hostile takeover of American democracy is underway.
The Decline Curve
Where America was before Trump returned
To understand what’s happening, we need to understand where America was before Trump’s second term began.
Ray Dalio, founder of the world’s largest hedge fund, has spent years studying the rise and fall of empires. His analysis of 500 years of history reveals a pattern: great powers rise through education, innovation, competitiveness, and strong institutions. They decline through debt, inequality, internal conflict, and institutional decay. The cycle typically lasts about 80 years, with transitions between orders lasting 10 to 20 years—often marked by great conflict.
The United States, Dalio argues, entered its decline phase years ago. The indicators are clear: massive debt that keeps growing; wealth gaps at historic levels; political polarisation that makes governance nearly impossible; infrastructure deteriorating; education outcomes falling relative to competitors; internal conflict rising.
Dalio describes what happens in this phase:
“When the government has problems funding itself, when there are bad economic conditions and living standards for most people are declining, and there are large wealth, values, and political gaps, internal conflict between the rich and the poor greatly increases. This leads to political extremism that shows up as populism of the left or the right.”
And then the critical passage:
“Populist leaders emerge from both sides and pledge to take control and bring about order. That’s when democracy is most challenged, because it fails to control the anarchy, and it is when the move to a strong populist leader who will bring order to the chaos is most likely.”
This is where America was when Trump won his second term. Not at the peak of its power, but well into its decline. The conditions for a strongman were already in place.
But here’s what matters: Dalio is clear that decline is not inevitable. “Reversing a decline is difficult,” he writes, “because that requires undoing a lot that’s already been done, but it’s possible... the cycle can be extended if those in charge pay attention to their vital signs and improve them.”
America’s decline could have been arrested. The right choices—investing in education, rebuilding infrastructure, reducing inequality, strengthening institutions, renewing democratic legitimacy—could have extended the cycle. Other nations have done it.
Instead, Trump’s second term has accelerated every negative indicator. More debt. More polarisation. More institutional decay. More internal conflict. The decline that could have been reversed is now being deliberately deepened.
The Revolution
Eurasia Group’s assessment
Eurasia Group, the world’s leading political risk consultancy, published its Top Risks report for 2026 this week. Risk number one—above China, above Russia, above climate, above AI—is “US political revolution.”
Their assessment is stark:
“The United States is experiencing a political revolution: President Donald Trump’s attempt to systematically dismantle the checks on his power, capture the machinery of government, and weaponize it against his enemies... what began as tactical norm-breaking has become a system-level transformation beyond partisan hardball or executive overreach—qualitatively different from what even the most ambitious American presidents have attempted.”
The report documents what has already happened: Career civil servants purged for political rather than performance-related reasons. Inspectors general, ethics watchdogs, and independent agency leaders sacked. The Justice Department and FBI transformed into “fully political arms of the White House, stripped of the operational independence that had insulated them since Watergate.” Media companies, law firms, and universities facing investigations and lawsuits designed to force compliance.
Eurasia Group frames this as a revolution, not merely overreach. And they identify a crucial insight about causation:
“The United States was already the most structurally dysfunctional political system among advanced industrial democracies before Trump returned to office. He is a symptom, a beneficiary, and an accelerant of that dysfunction, but he didn’t cause it—and he won’t fix it.”
This is the essential point. Trump didn’t create the conditions for his takeover. The decline—the debt, the inequality, the polarisation, the institutional rot—created the conditions for Trump. But rather than arresting the decline, he is exploiting it. Converting crisis into opportunity. Using the dysfunction to consolidate power.
The report’s most haunting comparison:
“It’s America’s own late Gorbachev era: The country is careening toward something, but nobody knows what. And for millions of Americans, perhaps even a voting majority, the risks of uncertain revolution beat the certainty of continued decay under a system that wasn’t working for them.”
The Evidence
Jack Smith’s testimony
On December 17, 2025, Jack Smith sat before the House Judiciary Committee for eight hours. The special counsel who had spent years building the case against Trump—for attempting to overturn the 2020 election and for retaining classified documents—was now being interrogated by Republicans looking for grounds to prosecute him.
The transcript, released on December 31, reveals Smith defending not just his work but the rule of law itself.
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.”
Smith accused Trump and his allies of “exploiting” the confusion and violence at the Capitol on January 6 to further their “criminal scheme.” When Republicans suggested Trump’s statements were protected by the First Amendment, Smith was direct:
“Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment... There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case.”
He elaborated: “He was free to say that he thought he won the election—he was even free to say falsely that he won the election. But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function.”
The cases were dropped after Trump won the 2024 election—not because of innocence, but because Justice Department policy prevents prosecution of a sitting president. The evidence remains. The crimes remain. The consequences have been inverted: the man who attempted to overturn an election is now president; the prosecutor who documented his crimes is now a target.
“I am eyes wide open,” Smith said, “that this president will seek retribution against me if he can.”
This is what institutional capture looks like. The evidence exists. The crimes are documented. And none of it matters, because the institutions that would enforce accountability have been captured by the person they were meant to hold accountable.
The Capture
How it happened
Eurasia Group tracks administration actions along two dimensions: how much they break with established norms, and how much they erode institutional checks on presidential power. Actions that score high on both are “revolutionary.” Their analysis shows that most of the administration’s major actions cluster in that quadrant—and most have succeeded.
The mechanisms of capture:
Purging expertise. Career civil servants removed for political rather than performance reasons. The Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner fired. Federal employee surveys cancelled. Agencies like NOAA that provide essential data had their capacity gutted. “As loyalists replace experts across the federal government,” Eurasia Group notes, “state capacity will weaken... The next crisis will find a government less prepared to respond.”
Weaponising justice. The Justice Department and FBI converted into political arms of the White House. Investigations launched into Democratic fundraising platforms, donors, officials, and candidates. The threat of prosecution used to deter opposition. January 6 defendants pardoned, signalling that “Trump-aligned rule breakers will enjoy executive protection.”
Chilling dissent. Companies that employ prominent critics face investigations. Executives who criticise the White House are singled out. Foundations that donate to Democrats risk fights over tax-exempt status. Media companies self-censor. Law firms settle winnable lawsuits rather than face retaliation. “The effect will be to make public criticism of and opposition to Trump costlier.”
Exploiting the courts. The administration repeatedly lost in court—but exploited the gaps in a legal system that couldn’t keep pace with their actions. “Even actions that face legal challenges have often already achieved their strategic purpose: law firms and news organizations have been chilled regardless of whether the suits ultimately prevail.”
The Supreme Court. The conservative majority has proven “receptive to the administration’s maximalist conception of presidential power, known as unitary executive theory.” One of the most effective checks on executive power has often acceded to Trump’s revolutionary push.
The result is a transformation of American governance. “The United States can’t be categorized as a representative democracy in 2026,” Eurasia Group concludes, “not because it’s heading toward dictatorship but because it’s in the middle of a political revolution whose outcome will remain genuinely indeterminate for years.”
The Consequences
What this means for the world
The implications extend far beyond America’s borders.
“The United States is itself unwinding its own global order,” Eurasia Group writes. “The world’s most powerful country is in the throes of a political revolution.”
The economic order built at Bretton Woods in 1944. The security architecture constructed after the Second World War. The institutions, norms, and agreements that have governed international relations for eighty years. All of it is being dismantled—not by America’s enemies, but by America itself.
“Even as external conflicts recede,” the report notes, “the United States itself will be the principal source of global risk in 2026.”
The consequences are already visible:
Tariffs used to extract concessions from allies and adversaries alike.
Military power wielded unilaterally, especially in the Western Hemisphere—as Venezuela demonstrates.
Alliance commitments that shift with presidential mood.
Soft power eroding as the US finds it harder to build coalitions and attract global talent.
Democratic backsliding that emboldens autocrats elsewhere.
“When the next global crisis hits,” Eurasia Group warns, “there will be no ‘committee to save the world.’”
And the most sobering conclusion: “Whether Trump’s revolution succeeds or fails, there is no going back to what came before.”
The Choice That Wasn’t Made
Ray Dalio ends his analysis of declining empires with a simple prescription: “It comes down to just two things—earn more than we spend, and treat each other well.”
The United States did neither. It kept spending more than it earned. It kept treating its citizens as enemies to be defeated rather than compatriots to be persuaded. It kept allowing inequality to grow, institutions to rot, polarisation to deepen.
And when the conditions became intolerable—when millions of Americans concluded that “the risks of uncertain revolution beat the certainty of continued decay under a system that wasn’t working for them”—they chose the strongman who promised to burn it down.
The tragedy is that this wasn’t inevitable. Other democracies have faced similar challenges and made different choices. Countries have reversed decline by investing in their people, rebuilding trust in institutions, reducing inequality, and renewing democratic legitimacy. It’s hard. It requires leadership. It requires sacrifice. But it’s possible.
America didn’t make that choice. Instead, it chose a hostile takeover—a revolution led by a man who sees retribution as his mandate and power as its own justification.
Five years after the mob stormed the Capitol, the coup has succeeded by other means.
What Comes Next
We are witnessing the end of the American century.
The economic architecture forged at Bretton Woods in 1944. The security alliances constructed after the Second World War. The institutions and norms that governed international relations for eighty years. All of it is being torn down by the nation that built it.
This is the hinge moment Mark Carney identified—the point where the trajectory of history can change dramatically. The old order is ending. The question is what replaces it.
This piece is the third in a series examining that question.
The first piece, The Tipping Point, examined the Venezuela operation—what happened, what it revealed, and the questions it raises.
The second piece, Hiding in Plain Sight, traced how the administration telegraphed everything it was going to do—and why so many refused to see it.
The next pieces will examine what’s being built in response: the democratic coordination emerging among allies who can no longer rely on American leadership; the leaders demonstrating that purpose-led governance can be resilient—even antifragile—in the face of authoritarian pressure; and the strategic frameworks being developed to navigate a world where the rules-based order is under assault.
The hostile takeover of American democracy is a catastrophe for Americans and for the world. But catastrophe is also opportunity. The end of one order is the beginning of another.
The question is who will build it, and what values it will embody.
Sources and References
Primary Sources
Ray Dalio, Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order, 2021. Video summary and book.
Ian Bremmer and Cliff Kupchan, “Top Risks 2026”, Eurasia Group, January 2026.
Jack Smith testimony transcript, House Judiciary Committee, 17 December 2025. Released 31 December 2025.
Glenn Thrush, “In Hearing Transcript, Jack Smith Defends Decision to Indict Trump”, New York Times, 31 December 2025.
Companion Pieces
The Tipping Point: Venezuela and the end of the beginning, A Global Hinge Moment.
Hiding in Plain Sight: From Munich to Venezuela, A Global Hinge Moment.
The Donroe Doctrine: Trump’s 21st-Century Monroe Doctrine, A Global Hinge Moment.
A Global Hinge Moment - About
If you’re new here, welcome - I’m Denyse Whillier.
I write about the global hinge moment - this rupture in the global order that will shape what comes next for generations - because understanding what’s happening matters for everyone building something with purpose. But I come at it from a particular angle: eight years as CEO of a purpose-led enterprise taught me that strategy isn’t abstract - it’s the daily work of navigating uncertainty, making decisions with incomplete information, and finding pathways when the obvious routes are blocked.
I call this Strategic Hope.
That experience shapes how I read this moment. I’m looking for where the strategic hope is - the values-led leaders building alternatives, the strategies that are working, the patterns we can learn from. Because the builders, not the destroyers, are the future.
This publication’s sister, We Are Mimosa, focuses specifically on women navigating their own hinge moments. If that resonates, I’d love to see you there too.
To explore how we can work together, book a strategy session.
To see results my clients get, read my case studies.