One of the hallmarks emerging from this second Trump Administration is that almost everything that was once thought to be impossible is starting to happen or has already been accomplished in just the first six months.
For example…
President Trump will never come back after 2020 and win in 2024. WRONG! 
No one can eliminate the Department of Education, not even Reagan could do it. WRONG!
Trump will never end the Iran/Israel war. WRONG!
Trump will never end the Congo and Rawanda war. WRONG!
If Trump wins, China will invade Taiwan. WRONG!
Trump’s tariffs will crash the economy! WRONG!
Trump’s trade deals will crash the economy! WRONG!
No one could ever completely dismantle and shut off USAID. WRONG!
The Big, Beautiful Bill will never pass. WRONG!
I could go on and on and on, but you get the idea.
Certainly not everything is done yet, and there is still much work to go (and 3 and 1/2 years to do it in), and two of the biggest prizes that still remain are: (1) Shutting down the IRS, and (2) Ending the Fed.
They kind of go hand in hand, and I believe by the end of President Trump’s second term he will have accomplished both.
It’s already started for those who have eyes to see, and now I want to focus specifically on the second one: Ending the Fed.
For years, I’ve told you that President Trump intends to end the Federal Reserve (the biggest disaster to ever hit our country) and essentially merge it into the Treasury Department.
People called me crazy for saying that, but now?
Now it’s front page news on CNBC!
Watch this short clip as current Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was asked on CNBC about whether he could serve as both Fed Chair and Treasury Secretary at the same time.
Spoiler alert: he didn’t say no!
NEW: Bessent is asked if he can be both Fed Chair and Treasury Secretary at the same time.
Bessent: “Well I think it hasn’t been done since 1930 something.”
CNBC: “That was not a no.” pic.twitter.com/7CozAi53W6
— Bitcoin News (@BitcoinNewsCom) July 3, 2025
Backup here if needed:
Think that’s just crazy talk?
You’d be wrong.
It’s not at all without precedent, happening many times in the past:
To be fair, the reason for this overlap between 1913 and 1935 is because the Federal Reserve was founded in 1913 and was initially tied to the Treasury, not independent of it.
From 1914 until the Banking Act of 1935 (effective 1936), the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury was, by law, also the ex officio Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Thus, early Treasury Secretaries such as William G. McAdoo (Wilson administration) and Andrew W. Mellon (Harding/Coolidge/Hoover administrations) technically held both titles simultaneously.
ADVERTISEMENTAfter 1936, the Fed’s chairmanship became independent of the Treasury, and since then only the two individuals below have served in both roles at different times.
So what’s the point?
The point is, it’s not at all unprecedented to consider either (1) merging the Fed back under the Treasury, which would be a huge positive step forward towards removing the unchecked power of the private Federal Reserve Bank, or (2) ending the Fed altogether and going back to a pre-1913 world which functioned just fine.
To wrap this all up, I turned to ChatGPT to ask what would happen to the balance of power between the unelected, unaccountable, private Federal Reserve Banking system and the Executive Branch (Trump), and here’s what it told me:
If Scott Bessent were to serve both as Chair of the Federal Reserve and as U.S. Treasury Secretary—a theoretical scenario that has never happened in modern U.S. history—it would have massive implications for the balance of power between the Federal Reserve system (private banks) and the Executive Branch (President Trump).
Here’s a breakdown of how that might play out:
Institutional Context
The Federal Reserve Chair controls U.S. monetary policy: interest rates, quantitative easing, and banking stability. The Fed is supposed to be independent from the White House to prevent politicized money-printing or rate manipulation.
The Treasury Secretary is a cabinet-level role that manages fiscal policy, government spending, and public debt, directly under the President’s authority.
These two roles are designed to provide a balance between independent monetary control (Fed) and political direction (Treasury).
If Bessent Holds Both Roles
Assuming legal and political hurdles were somehow overcome (highly unlikely, but hypothetically):
ADVERTISEMENT1. Massive Centralization of Economic Power
One person would be in charge of both money creation and government borrowing—controlling the printing press and the checkbook.
The historic “Fed independence” would effectively collapse.
2. Trump Gains More Power
Even if the Fed technically remains independent, having a Trump-aligned loyalist like Bessent in both seats essentially removes the firewall.
Trump could influence interest rates, monetary easing, and debt issuance to juice the economy, fund stimulus, or fight inflation on his terms.
3. Private Banks Lose Relative Influence
The Fed is structured to serve the interests of member banks, but if the Fed Chair is also loyal to the White House, it dilutes private bank control.
This could be seen as a partial nationalization of the Fed, or at least a major shift toward public influence over monetary tools.
4. Markets Could React Volatilely
Investors would fear the erosion of Fed independence, possibly triggering dollar instability, inflation expectations, or a bond selloff—especially if fiscal expansion is paired with monetary easing.
Or, conversely, markets might rally in the short term if this leads to aggressive growth policies.
Who Gains More Power?
Party Gain/Loss if Bessent holds both roles President Trump Federal Reserve (as institution) Loses independence, becomes an executive tool
Private Banks Congress American People Gains depend on outcomes—could benefit short term, but risks long-term instability
Summary
If Bessent held both positions, it would represent an unprecedented fusion of fiscal and monetary power under one individual, likely tilted in favor of Trump’s executive agenda. The President would gain power, the Fed would become politically subservient, and Wall Street’s influence would decline. While this could yield aggressive pro-growth policies, it would also risk undermining global confidence in U.S. monetary integrity.
Sounds good to me, let’s make it happen!
For more on the scam of Central Banks, read this:
Share!
This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport.
View the original article here.
Source link