Nothing. But that doesn’t mean they won’t be dragged through investigations and courts until nothing is proven.
I find this an odd position to take for someone who I would have characterized as a "law and order" type, or at least at that end of the spectrum. If an authority brought criminal charges against members of the Trump family, are you saying that they would do so without sufficient evidence? Isn't that something for the courts to decide, something for which you have expressed a lot of faith in the past. At least the Trumps wouldn't be dependent on legal aid lawyers (they'd have Rudy on the case).
But taking a step back, which is the steeper slippery slope, do you think? Which represents the greater risk to the country? That an incoming administration would use the law improperly to "punish" the relatives of former office holders (not behaviour I would have associated with the US), or the granting of near absolute powers to a "monarch" to pre-emptively forgive his relatives for crimes that are yet to be declared. Is that latter idea really a good one? Because it doesn't seem to me to be a good fit with the other the ideas in the constitution.