No matter what special counsel Robert Mueller found, it won’t be the end of the president’s legal woes — because he, his business, and his family are in jeopardy from many other investigations and lawsuits.

The Justice Department is digging into the Trump Organization’s role in hush money payments and the Trump inaugural committee’s finances. Congressional committees are probing everything from how Trump’s son-in-law and daughter got security clearances to Trump’s taxes. State investigators are looking into Trump’s foundation and business.

There have also been several high-profile lawsuits against the president that could surface damaging new information. In particular, a defamation suit by a former Apprentice contestant could result in Trump’s deposition under oath about sexual assault accusations.

So it’s worth looking at all the legal threats to Trump and organizations close to him that go beyond Mueller — the ones we know about, at least. This isn’t an exhaustive list — I’ve left out the investigations into his donors or his former aides’ lobbying associates. The list is long enough already.

The hush money investigation

What’s it about? The probe focuses on hush money payments made on Donald Trump’s behalf before the 2016 election — payments that prosecutors say violated campaign finance law.

Prosecutors have outlined two such payments for women who alleged affairs with Trump. First, American Media Inc. (the parent company of the National Enquirer) gave $150,000 to Karen McDougal. Second, Michael Cohen gave $130,000 to Stormy Daniels. Trump later repaid Cohen for the money in 2017.

Who’s in charge? The US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). SDNY’s US Attorney Geoffrey Berman has recused himself, so Deputy US Attorney Robert Khuzami has oversight over the probe.

What’s happened so far?

In August 2018, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to two violations of campaign finance law (and other crimes related to his own finances). He later received a three-year prison sentence.

In December 2018, SDNY announced that they’d reached a non-prosecution agreement with American Media Inc.

As of February 2019, SDNY continued to have an “ongoing investigation” related to the hush money payments.

What could be next? Prosecutors have already stated that in making the payments, Cohen acted “in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1”: Donald Trump. That’s a sign that Trump himself may face legal risk. The roles of the Trump Organization and its top-level executives in the payments are reportedly under scrutiny too.

Read more: What could be next for the hush money investigation

The Trump inaugural committee investigations

What’s it about? In short, money. Federal prosecutors are scrutinizing a host of matters related to the Trump inaugural committee’s finances. They are looking into potential corruption involving favors for donors, whether foreign funds were illegally given through “straw donors,” how the committee spent the money it took in, and how it accounted for that spending.

Who’s in charge? Multiple Justice Department offices have investigated aspects of the inauguration. SDNY clearly has a major role, but the US Attorney’s offices in Brooklyn and Los Angeles are reportedly handling certain aspects of the probe. The US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia also handled a plea deal about an inauguration “straw donor” offense.

On top of the federal probes, state attorney general offices from New Jersey and the District of Columbia appear to be pursuing their own separate inquiries into whether the committee violated civil (not criminal) statutes.

What’s happened so far?

In August 2018, Republican lobbyist Sam Patten struck a plea deal in which he admitted to helping steer $50,000 from a Ukrainian oligarch client to the inaugural committee, and agreed to cooperate with investigators.

In February 2019, SDNY prosecutors sent a sweeping subpoena to Trump’s inaugural committee, demanding extensive documents on the company’s donations and spending.

Also in February, the attorney general offices for New Jersey and the District of Columbia sent their own civil subpoenas to the inaugural committee.

What could be next? SDNY’s subpoena to the inaugural committee listed several potential offenses: conspiracy against the United States, false statements, mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, disclosure violations, and foreign contributions through straw donors. It also signaled a particular interest in one donor, Imaad Zuberi. Charges could come on any of these fronts (or none, if prosecutors have insufficient evidence or determine that no crime occurred).

Read more: Why the Trump inauguration is under criminal investigation

The top congressional inquires threatening Trump

Since Democrats retook the majority in the House of Representatives, their committees in the chamber have launched a number of investigations into Trump and his administration. There are too many to list them all here, but a few stand out already as seeming particularly dangerous to Trumpworld.

The House Russia and obstruction probes: Special counsel Robert Mueller has ended his investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election and obstruction of justice. But House Democrats have already launched their own probes, led by Rep. Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee and Rep. Jerry Nadler’s (D-NY) House Judiciary Committee.

Why might this be important, if Mueller has already investigated these matters extensively? The main reason is that the special counsel has been focused on whether actual crimes occurred. It is possible he has turned up newsworthy and scandalous information that nonetheless didn’t involve outright lawbreaking. It’s also possible he lacks the evidence to bring charges.

Additionally, it’s unclear whether Mueller’s report will attempt to fully tell the story of what happened with Russian interference in 2016 (many believe it won’t). So the Democratic-led investigations could play this role instead — surfacing facts that may prove politically harmful to the president, even if they’re not necessarily criminal.

Read more: House Democrats launch sweeping obstruction probe

White House security clearances: The House Oversight Committee is the chamber’s top investigative body — so it’s intriguing that as its first major probe, it’s looking into the esoteric-sounding question of how the Trump administration handles security clearances.

The White House overruled career government officials’ recommendations that at least 30 Trump appointees not receive top secret clearances, according to NBC News. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) has said this risked “grave breaches of national security,” and demanded to review any documentation about how these decisions were made.

This probe could be big because it’s a scandal that touches Trump’s family. Both Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and his daughter Ivanka were given security clearances against the recommendations of career officials, and due to pressure from the president himself, according to reports. We don’t yet know what, exactly, so concerned the career officials reviewing their background check information — but Cummings wants to find out.

Read more: Ella Nilsen’s explainer on the security clearance investigation

Trump’s tax returns: In 2016, Donald Trump became the first major-party presidential nominee in decades not to release his tax returns. More than two years later, we still haven’t seen them — which means the finances of the wealthiest president ever remain opaque.

Now, that could change. An obscure law from 1924 gives the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee the authority to request any taxpayer’s information from the Treasury Department. And as of 2019, that chair is Democratic Rep. Richard Neal.

Foreseeing legal battles ahead, Neal has taken things slowly. It’s also unclear how, even if Neal did get Trump’s tax returns, he could legally make them public. But considering how hard Trump has tried to keep his tax returns secret, this could end up being an enormously important line of inquiry.

Read more: Emily Stewart on Democrats’ coming battle to get Trump’s tax returns

New York state-based investigations

It’s not only the feds. State investigations are digging into Trump as well for potentially violating state law. So far, the most serious probes appear to be in New York, the state Trump lived and where his business is located.

The Trump Foundation (New York AG): In June 2018, New York’s attorney general filed a civil lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation and its directors — President Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump — alleging a “pattern of persistent illegal conduct, occurring over more than a decade.”

The lawsuit claimed the Trumps inappropriately took advantage of the foundation’s tax-exempt status, using its resources to help Trump’s presidential campaign, to promote his business interests, and even to settle a lawsuit against Mar-a-Lago — all with no real independent oversight.

In December, the Trumps agreed to dissolve the foundation because of this lawsuit. But the suit continues — New York is seeking both monetary reimbursement and a ban on the Trumps from serving as directors on nonprofit boards for several years.

Read more: Details from New York’s lawsuit against the Trump Foundation

New York state tax investigations: Meanwhile, the Department of Taxation and Finance in the Empire State has been looking into Trump on several fronts (separately from the state attorney general). First, the department opened an investigation into the Trump Foundation, the New York Times reported last year. This covers some of the same matters described above, but it could lead to a criminal referral, in contrast to the AG’s civil lawsuit.

Second, after the Times ran a lengthy article on decades’ worth of Trump’s “suspect tax schemes,” a New York tax department spokesperson said they were “reviewing the allegations” and “vigorously pursuing all appropriate avenues of investigation.”

Read more: The New York Times on Trump’s dubious tax schemes

Trump projects’ financing (New York AG): Michael Cohen testified to Congress in February that Trump’s company had a practice of inflating its assets to get more favorable loan terms. So on March 11, the New York state attorney general’s office subpoenaed two financial institutions that lent to the Trump Organization — Deutsche Bank and Investors Bank.

The subpoena asked for financial documents about several specific projects: Trump’s hotel in Washington, DC, his golf resort in Florida, his hotel and tower in Chicago, a New York City condo complex, and an unsuccessful effort to buy the Buffalo Bills football team. This is reportedly a civil probe and not a criminal one, and according to the New York Times, its “focus and scope” are “unclear.”

Lawsuits

Summer Zervos’s defamation lawsuit: Summer Zervos is a former Apprentice contestant who came forward in 2016 to say that Trump sexually assaulted her in 2007. When she met Trump while seeking a job, she says, Trump repeatedly kissed her, touched her breast, and pressed his genitals against her, without her consent.

In 2017, Zervos filed a lawsuit against Trump in New York state court. Zervos is not suing Trump for the alleged assault itself, because the statute of limitations has passed. Rather, she sued Trump for defamation — she says Trump defamed her by calling her a liar when she came forward in 2016.

The reason this suit may be so dangerous for Trump is that, as Elie Mystal writes, it’s currently the most likely to get him deposed under oath. That’s a dangerous prospect for Trump, and one his lawyers have tried desperately to avoid. And Trump’s team is well aware that Bill Clinton’s false statements during a deposition for Paula Jones’s sexual harassment lawsuit eventually lead to his impeachment.

But discovery in Zervos’s suit is already underway, and the judge overseeing it has said Trump does have to be deposed. The current deadline for that deposition is June 28 (though that deadline has already been moved multiple times).

A Trump deposition isn’t a sure thing just yet, though. Trump’s lawyers have appealed, making the argument that a sitting president should be immune from lawsuits brought in state court. So far, judges at two levels of the state court have ruled against them. But Trump’s lawyer has said he will appeal to New York’s highest court next, and perhaps to the US Supreme Court afterward.

Read more: Anna North’s explainer on Summer Zervos’s allegations

Emoluments lawsuit: Since Trump was preparing to take office, there have been questions about whether his continued ownership of the Trump Organization meant he was violating the US Constitution. Specifically at issue is the emoluments clause, which says that no elected official shall accept an “emolument” of “any kind whatever” from a king, prince, or foreign state. For instance, foreign leaders frequently patronize Trump’s hotel.

So the attorneys general for Maryland and Washington, DC, filed suit over this, using the creative argument that Trump’s violation of the emoluments clause was giving his business (and specifically his DC hotel) an unfair advantage over hotels or convention centers they subsidize. In March 2018, US District Judge Peter Messitte ruled that Maryland and DC did in fact have standing to sue Trump and that the suit could move forward — into the discovery process, which could reveal information the Trump Organization hopes to keep secret. But Trump appealed the standing ruling, and the Fourth Circuit judges who heard the case sounded quite skeptical of the plaintiffs’ arguments this week.

Theoretically, an unfavorable ruling for Trump in the emoluments clause suit could have massive implications for how the Trump Organization does business — though appeals are likely to stretch on for years.

Read more: Dylan Scott on the emoluments clause lawsuit

Michael Cohen’s legal fees lawsuit: On March 7, 2019, Michael Cohen filed suit against the Trump Organization in New York state court, claiming the company breached a contract by halting payment of his legal fees last year. On its face, the case is merely about money — Cohen wants Trump’s company to pay him $1.9 million.

Yet there are many questions about how, exactly, the president has been coordinating his legal defenses for all these sprawling probes. Has he made certain promises — for repayment, or for pardons — for associates who remain “loyal” to him? Both matters have already come up in connection to Cohen.

For more on the investigations into the president, follow Andrew Prokop on Twitter and check out Vox’s guide to the Trump-Russia investigation.