Is Trump’s Treasury Secretary Pick His Most Controversial?

We occasionally hear that the United States of America has two constitutions: 1776 and 1871. The latter, is often claimed to be the “constitution that turned our country into a corporation.”

Bessent Testimony

“As we begin 2025, Americans are barreling toward an economic crisis by year end. If Congress fails to act, Americans will face the largest tax increase in history … we must make permanent the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” said Scott Bessent, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be Treasury secretary on Jan. 15, 2025.

Bessent appeared before the Senate Finance Committee for his nomination to serve as the country’s 79th Treasury secretary.

Bessent could likely be Trump’s most controversial cabinet pick.

On the occasion of America’s 250th anniversary, Trump said that Bessent would assist the United States to enter a new era by strengthening its position in the global economy and guaranteeing that the dollar would continue to be the world’s reserve currency.

With Bessent, Trump promised to “make America rich again, prosperous again, affordable again, and, most importantly, great again.”

If approved by the Senate, Bessent, would become the first openly gay Secretary of the Treasury.

He resides mostly in Charleston, South Carolina, with his husband, John Freeman, a former prosecutor and their two sons.

According to some reports, Bessent’s affiliation with Trump is a fairly recent development as the former employee of George Soros has not been overtly a Republican.

Bessent, however, has been acquainted with the Trump family for decades, including Fred Trump, the real estate tycoon and father of Donald Trump.

During the Senate questioning several other topics were addressed, including tariffs and who will pay for them, the independence of the Federal Reserve, the debt ceiling, reining in government spending, and concerns over Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.

When asked about inflation and whether any policies of President Trump would increase inflation he said, “nothing I can immediately think of.”

One of the most interesting moments was during questioning when a senator told Bessent that if the US defaulted on its debt because our debt is unsustainable, the Bank of England would be the debt collector.

Bessent answered that he just learned of this a few days ago. And if confirmed, he would dissolve that.

Common Understanding

The way I have understood the issue is that the Act of 1871 formed a corporation separate from the nation: 

● It did not “turn the country into a corporation.”  The nation still exists and is named the United States of America.

● The corporation’s name is “District of Columbia”, but it trademarked the name “United States” as one of several DBA (Doing Business As) alternate “trade names”. 

● The corporation was originally formed by our real government to handle the business needs of the government, and the government subcontracted business activities to it. 

● This worked well until it didn’t. Politicians caused the US to borrow money it couldn’t repay. The American government went bankrupt and was taken over by the international monetary fund in 1944.

● Politicians used it as a way to do things they wanted to do which were not constitutionally allowed for the government to do, so they did it through the private corporation, which was able to do things that the government could not do, because it had corporate immunity. 

2 Constitutions?

Of course our laws and government indicate that the ultimate foundation of our Constitution in 1776, was one of liberty, sovereignty, and rights bestowed by God—not granted by government.

However, there are indications that our Constitutional foundation was quietly sold, repackaged, and rebranded into something wholly unrecognizable in 1871.

Some call this the “Grim Scenario,” with many people arguing the US became a corporation under the Act of 1871, prioritizing profit, debt, and centralized control over the promises of the original Constitution.

If this revelation from the Senate hearing is true, did Bessent confirm that the Bank of England could potentially act as our debt collector if the U.S. defaults?

We must ask if our nation, once envisioned as a republic of free individuals, has been leveraged, mortgaged, and placed under the thumb of international banking interests?

● The Act of 1871 is often described as the turning point when the United States was restructured into a corporate entity.

● This move centralized power in Washington, D.C., creating a “corporate personhood” that legally transformed how our government operates.

● From that moment, did America cease to function solely as a constitutional republic and became, in many ways, a business enterprise?

● Under this corporate model, every dollar you earn, every action you take, and every law that binds you serves the interests of the financial oligarchs—institutions like the Federal Reserve, global banking systems, and international organizations that prioritize profit over people.

● The fact that a U.S. senator openly acknowledged this arrangement —the Bank of England acting as a potential debt collector—brings the underbelly of the financial system into stark focus.

The question is this: How can a sovereign nation be at the mercy of foreign financial institutions unless it has willingly ceded its sovereignty?

If this is true, as acknowledged, then it is not a hypothetical. It is a feature of the corporate system birthed in 1871.

● The Federal Reserve, another arm of this corporate machine, ensures perpetual debt.

● The IRS enforces it.

Now we are hearing whispers of foreign entities waiting to collect on this debt, not from the government, but effectively from the taxpayer, the worker, the citizen.

The 1776 Constitution  empowerd the individual. The government serves the people, not the other way around. This establishes a free people capable of self-governance.

If the 1871 Constitution exists, it gives power and prioritizes centralized authority and corporate interests, bounding the nation to a system of perpetual financial servitude. This reduces citizens to mere assets in a global ledger, with foreign creditors waiting in the wings.

Will the Trump-Vance administration work to abolish the Federal Reserve and reclaim control over our monetary system and end the era of debt-based enslavement?

The GROK Response

When asked the question above, the GROK reply was straight forward:

“The statement you’ve provided contains elements that are rooted in a popular conspiracy theory, but it significantly misrepresents historical and legal facts regarding the Act of 1871. Here’s a breakdown based on available information:

Act of 1871

Officially known as the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, this legislation was passed to create a single, unified territorial government for the District of Columbia. It combined the cities of Washington, Georgetown, and Washington County into one municipal entity called the “District of Columbia.” This was done to address governance issues in the capital, not to transform the United States into a corporation. The Act established a municipal corporation for the District, not for the entire United States.

Corporate Entity

Misconception: The claim that the Act of 1871 turned the United States into a corporate entity stems from a misinterpretation of the term “municipal corporation,” which simply refers to a type of legal entity used for managing local government functions like cities or counties.

This does not equate to the United States as a whole becoming a for-profit corporation.

Legal scholars and historical documents do not support the idea that this Act fundamentally changed the nature of the U.S. government from a constitutional republic to a business enterprise.

Centralization of Power

While the Act did centralize governance within Washington, D.C., for administrative purposes, it did not extend to centralizing federal power over the entire nation in a corporate manner.

The U.S. continued to operate under its Constitution, with checks and balances between the federal and state governments.

Corporate Personhood

The concept of “corporate personhood” exists in U.S. law, but it relates more to businesses and their legal rights, not to the transformation of the government itself into a corporate entity.

This legal concept was significantly developed through Supreme Court decisions like “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad” in 1886, not directly through the Act of 1871.

☆☆☆☆☆

IN GOD WE TRUST

Thanks for supporting independent true journalism with a small tip. Dodie & Jack

---

Dodie & Jack Dennis are regular customers of Green Pasture. Highly recommended.

---

Green Pasture Here!

Use Code CLEVER10 for a 10% discount on other Green Pasture products today!

CLICK HERE for GOOD HEALTH!

GREENPASTURE.ORG

Get Your Natural Vitamins A & D from the Sea!

☆☆☆☆☆

See details here!