Ascended Master Saint Germain through Kim Michaels, July 4, 2026. This dictation was given at the 2026 American Webinar: Will There Be Another 250 Years?

I AM the Ascended Master Saint Germain. Will the United States of America survive for another 250 years? Well, I certainly hope not in its present form. What other forms might there be that I envision could happen?

Rethinking the Constitution

Well, let us first go back and look at the Constitution, how it was created by the original 13 colonies. You realize why there were 13 colonies and not 13 states? Because they were created by the British Empire. Their boundaries were in large part defined by the British Empire, often by British officials sitting in England, having never been to America, not knowing the territory, not knowing the geography, and therefore, artificially drawing lines on a map that was not that accurate to begin with.

Then there were many other considerations, land charters, geographical limitations, and all kinds of boundary disputes over the years. What we can ask ourselves is: “Does it really give any meaning that 250 years later, the United States, which is now comprised of 50 states, still has a Constitution that was created based on the particular conditions found in those 13 colonies?” The distribution between small states and big states, Southern states with slavery, Northern states that were to some degree against slavery, small states, Western states, all kinds of differences, individualities that played into this mix that dictated the different compromises embedded in the Constitution.

You look at the United States today, so many more states, so many different states. But first of all, so many more people. Could the Founding Fathers ever have imagined that the United States would become so large geographically and have such an enormous population? Well, they could not really have imagined it, but I can assure you about one thing. If they had been able to see what the United States is today, they would all have said: “Well, there is absolutely no question that the Constitution needs to be rethought. Because there is no way that our Constitution, created based on these specific conditions, can be sufficient for such a large nation with such a big population.”

They would have all seen the unfeasibility of maintaining the Constitution for so long. They thought that the Constitution was the best they could come up with. They realized it was a compromise, many of them, and they instituted the process of amendment, because they knew it would have to be changed. But they also, many of them, envisioned that at some point, you would have to have an entire rethinking of the Constitutional framework.

Rethinking the states

The question is now, as I said, when will that happen? How could it ever happen? But before this can even really be contemplated, there is a need to rethink states. As I said, completely arbitrary boundaries were drawn between the original colonies, creating some of these very small states. Then, you look further, as more states were added, many of these Western states, a line was simply drawn on a map, a straight line, creating these very large states with a very small population. But then, look at, over these 250 years, what has happened to the consciousness of the people in the states. It is called the United States of America.

You realize that the Founding Fathers had a debate about what should be the official title of the president. Some suggested some high-flying, high-sounding titles, but they settled on the most simple, President of the United States. Has there, over these 250 years, emerged a national nationwide consciousness? Well, yes, there has, but not as much as there could have if the states had not been so insistent on maintaining their identity and their place in the government. Many of these smaller states, so many of the bigger but less populated states, insist on maintaining the Senate so they can have the same number of senators as much larger states or more populated states. And this has to a large degree meant that even though many among the people see themselves as Americans first and New Yorkers or Texans second, perhaps not so many people in Texas or in New York City, but still the states have not softened up their, we might say, national identity.

Regions instead of states?

The question is: “Will there ever come a point where someone is willing to step back and say: “Why are we maintaining these states? Why don’t we take a look at the map, look at the geography, and ask ourselves whether it really makes sense to maintain all the present states? Or whether we should define some criteria whereby we could redraw the map and perhaps simplify the map?” You could say some of the smaller states could disappear, but you could also think, as I have said before, in terms of regions. I have said about Europe that there comes a point where you have to acknowledge that perhaps the nation state as a concept has outlived its usefulness, and it makes more sense to create regions based on various geographical features. This could be done in the United States.

Have the states outlived their usefulness? Would it make more sense to create certain regions? This, of course, would require a rethinking of the Constitution. It would require the election of the president by popular vote, among other things. But look at the map today. Take a map that does not just show the states, but actually shows population, and then see whether it makes sense that there are these huge areas with a very low population. Or whether the map could be redrawn so that there were regions that are similar geographically, but have a larger population.

And you could also look at economic factors. What are the largest economies, the economic centers? And then, place one or perhaps a couple of those in certain regions so that there are not these very poor states in the south that you see today that can barely pay their debts, barely pay wages to public employees, and barely maintain public services. Does it really make sense that you have these very poor states that could do better if they were merged, but insist on maintaining their national identity?

A new anti-elitist constitution

What I am advocating here, and what I envision happening as we move into the Golden Age, is that there will come a point where there will be people who are willing to say: “Let us step back. Let us look at a practical perspective of where the country is at, where it might be headed, and see if we could not strengthen the United States by redrawing the map of the states, by rethinking an entirely new Constitution that meets the demands of the present day.” Now, I am not here talking about looking at the present Constitution, updating the language, adding a few things here and a few things there. I am talking about a radical reimagining of the Constitution. Naturally, I have such ideas already in place. I would be willing to communicate them to anyone who was sincere about doing this, as I have to some degree started doing with a few people who are open to these ideas.

I do not intend to dictate a new Constitution through this messenger or any other messenger, because I want it to be brought forth through an organic process like the first Constitution, but of course at a higher level. But the one thing that would be most important to write into the Constitution was what I talked about previously, the awareness that there has always been an elite who is trying to exploit the people. And that the primary function of the American government is to prevent the people from being exploited by one or several elites. This is the primary responsibility of any democratic government, and it should be the primary responsibility of the American government. Again, I am not talking about some far-flung thing that could happen way out in the future.

There are already many, many people in the U.S. who are ready to make that shift and suddenly see this, where elitism comes into focus. Elitism is brought out of the shadows, where the elites can no longer hide from the people, hide in plain sight, so to speak. And a critical mass of people suddenly shift and say: “Oh, this is obvious. This is the real problem in America—the elite exploiting the people, exploiting the laws, exploiting the environment, exploiting natural resources. Exploiting the Constitution which was written by elites, or at least people with a certain elitist mindset.” There can happen this shift where people suddenly say: “But we see that the Founding Fathers had some vision of a higher form of government that did not exploit the people, but gave everyone equal rights and equal opportunity. Why don’t we have that form of government in America? Surely it is because of the elite. Why don’t we create a Constitution that is directly aimed at preventing the elite from exploiting the population?”

What needs to change?

This would require, of course, that you stop gerrymandering. That you stop paying contributions. That you stop lobbying. That you in all ways got money out of politics. That you prevented people who are part of the elite from using their position or their money to get themselves elected, and therefore, undermine democracy through special interests. If you look back at the Founding Fathers, you will see that one of their concerns was to create a government that could not be dominated by an elite, like the British monarchy and a British noble class. They were very concerned about limiting the powers of the president so that the presidency would not attract a demagogue, as they saw it.

In other words, they realized full well that a person could make use of the democratic system by telling people exactly what they wanted to hear, especially if they were people who were dissatisfied with their lot in society. This person could tell them what they want to hear, promise to do something about this, and then, once he was elected to office, he could use the power of the presidency to pursue special interests, both his own and those of a small group of people who were backing him. This was one of their main concerns—to prevent a concentration around the presidency that could allow a demagogue to undermine democracy after being democratically elected. This is something that could be written much more clearly into the Constitution.

And of course, you can say that if the Founding Fathers could see the current president, they would be rotating in their graves. And say: “This is exactly what we attempted to prevent by creating the legislative, the judicial and the executive branch, limiting and balancing each other.” And they would say: “How can it be possible that the legislative and judicial branches are not limiting the president as we envisioned when we wrote the Constitution?” This would be the reaction of most of the Founding Fathers. They would be shocked to see that a president of the United States could make a billion dollars in one year in office, and even be proud of it. George Washington would have looked at this and been so shocked and so appalled that he probably would have refused to be president of a republic that could deteriorate to this level.

The failure to limit presidential power

Again, a complete rethinking based on realizing one thing. There has always been power elites in any society who have attempted to use whatever system of government was there to exploit the people. Therefore, one of the primary rights, one of the inalienable rights, is freedom from exploitation. We can even be specific and say freedom from exploitation of an elite who has special power and privileges over you. Many of the Founding Fathers saw that this was what the British monarchy represented, an elite that has power over the people and exploits the people. Because, of course, England saw the colonies as just a way to bring wealth back to England, as they did with all their other colonies. The people in the colonies were being exploited by the crown and they had no say. “No taxation without representation,” as the byword was.

And this was the last thing they wanted to see happen in America. But they did not write it more clearly into the Constitution. And why not? Because they could not really imagine that it would happen here. They thought they had done enough by dividing the power into the three branches and that this would balance it. Clearly, you see in the present situation that the Constitution has failed. It has failed to limit the power of the president. Because you have a president who has taken advantage of the democratic freedoms in a way that no other president has so far done. And therefore, it is necessary to be much more specific in the Constitution to limit the power of the president.

Black-and-white party system

Now, this would, of course, be much easier if the entire system was changed to a parliamentary system. Whereas, in many other of the modern democracies, there is a parliament that has the main power. And there is a prime minister who has limited powers and must always have a majority in parliament before being able to do something. And this is another change that could be considered. Again, there were reasons for creating the system the way it is. But are those reasons as relevant today as they were in 1787? Again, a need to rethink.

Now, there could also be a need, as I said, to rethink the two-party system, even political parties. Let me ask you a simple question here. Does the law of gravity work differently in blue states than in red states? Does the economic principles work differently? Well, obviously no. But if you look at the rhetoric of the two parties today, especially one of them, you would think that at least the economy and many other aspects of society work completely differently in blue states than in red states. And the difference is black and white, and it is epic. This, the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned because they spent a couple of months together in an uncomfortable hot room, noisy room, and even though they clearly saw their differences of opinion, they were able to pull together and create a Constitution. And they expected that this would always be the case, that the government, all branches of government, would be willing to set aside special interests for the greater good of the nation and the people.

This clearly has not been the case for a long time with the division between the Republican and Democratic parties. It has become a lot worse since the 1990s where Newt Gingrich and other Republicans deliberately reframed the Republican Party to become black and white, confrontational and present the situation in America in an epic framework. And this, of course, is a situation again that I fully realize will prevent any amendment to the Constitution, as it, by the way, has been a very long time since the Constitution was amended. But nevertheless, there is still a need for people who are willing to suddenly wake up and say: “This has gone too far. We need to step back and change the equation. Change the parameters of the public discourse. Change the tone and get back to what could be said to be the guiding principle for the Founding Fathers.” And it is this: “The interests of the whole are greater than special interests.”

Putting the whole above elite interests

This ties in with what I talked about with the Christ consciousness, where the Christ consciousness sees that all life came from the same source, sees that all life is connected, and therefore, seeks to raise up the whole. Whereas, in the anti-christ consciousness, the fallen consciousness, you seek to raise up yourself by exploiting the whole. You are weighing your own special interests over the common good. Again, I am not saying that the Founding Fathers were free of special interests. They obviously had their special interests, and they often clashed, and that is why they had to create compromises. But the thing is, the special interests that seemed important when the Constitution was written are mostly not relevant today. Slavery has, for better or worse, been abolished, so the conflict between the slave states in the South and the other states in the North is no longer as relevant.

There is again a need for some people who will step back and say: “How can we create a Constitution and a form of government that always puts the interests of the whole above special interests?” Surely there are many special interests in America, but what needs to be seen is that there is one special interest, namely that of the elite, to either maintain their position or gain a position that is in stark contrast to the interests of the people. Because the interest of the elite is to get a special position of power, privilege and wealth. The interest of most of the people is to have a good personal life, a life without exploiting anyone. Whereas the elite is willing to exploit anyone and everyone.

And when this is seen, when this comes into focus for a critical mass of people, you can see that the elite has been using the same tactic that has been used for thousands of years by despots and rulers and emperors: divide and conquer. And the elite has been actively and aggressively attempting to inflame any difference among various groups of people, so that they could rule. Because the people were too divided to stand up to the elite and say: “No more!” Therefore, people can realize that we need to do the same that the Founding Fathers did and say: “We have to set aside special interests as much as we can and focus on what is right for we the people, what is right for the whole, what is right for the country.”

Never enough for fallen beings

And unless that step is taken, America will not survive 250 years more. Because America will, as I said before, deteriorate, become more and more polarized, more and more factions that will tear at each other. And the elite will attempt to inflame the conflict between various groups of people until they create so much chaos and turmoil that the population will agree to a stricter rule by the elite, in order to get back to stability. But if this happens, the second law of thermodynamics would cause America to slowly self-destruct from within. And it would start with various armed conflicts. But the real factor will be the economy, because the economy simply cannot be sustained when the elite is allowed to exploit the population.

The elite, when you again look at history—and this is what they again will not see themselves, even though they are students of history—but they will not see that the elite very rarely is able to stop themselves. You look at these billionaires today, who already have more money than they could possibly spend. Look at Elon Musk. If he stopped working and dedicated all of his waking hours to spending money, he could not spend the money he has for the rest of his lifetime. Why does he need more? Because he cannot stop himself. He cannot restrict himself and say: “Oh, that is enough. Now, I am just going to enjoy life.” It is never enough for fallen beings, because they are black holes. They are seeking god-like status. And they can never attain it, because they are seeking to attain it in this world. They are on an impossible quest, but can they see it? Not as long as they are in the fallen consciousness.

What could we do better?

What would it take for a fallen being to see this? It would have to admit: “I was wrong. I was fundamentally wrong.” How often in world history have you seen any leader do this? Do you see the kings of Europe admitting this? Do you see the popes of the Catholic church admitting they were completely wrong in creating the church? Do you see the Tsars of Russia admit that they were wrong in not giving more freedom to the people? Do you see Stalin admitting he was wrong by killing 21 million of his own people? Do you see Mao admit that he was wrong by killing 40+ millions of Chinese, letting them starve to death? Do you see Hitler admitting he was wrong killing the Jews and pursuing the Third Reich? Do you see Donald Trump admitting that he is wrong?

You see. What is it that brings positive change? It is that some people are willing to consider: “The way we have been doing things it is not the best possible.There must be a better way.” You do not really have to think in terms of right and wrong, but the fallen beings can do nothing else. But you can just, as the Founding Fathers themselves said, you can look at America as an experiment. What is the nature of an experiment? You are trying something. You do not know exactly what the outcome will be, but you are willing to try anyway. When you see the outcome, you evaluate: “Oh, did it work out the way we thought? Did it work out the way we want? Could we do something better?” You do not have to even think that you were wrong for experimenting, but you have to be willing to consider: “What could we do better?”

What is the current political climate in the United States? Well, nobody can admit that they were wrong about anything. Why not? Because of the epic mindset. If you are in the epic mindset and you are wrong, you are epically wrong. You are wrong in an ultimate way which means you are then absolutely no good. You are either right or no good. There is nothing in between in the epic mindset. But that is so far from the Founding Fathers’ mindset, most of them, because they saw America as an experiment, and they fully expected that adjustments would have to be made.

Again, why am I saying this? Is it some far-flung dream? No. I simply observe there is a critical mass of people in America who are very close to making the shift where they say: “We have to overcome this mindset that we can see is there in the American collective psyche, that America could never be wrong. We must never be wrong. We are the heroes. We are the good guys. We saved democracy from Hitler. We won the Cold War. We could never be really wrong.” Yes, but it is not a matter of being wrong or not. I am not interested in making America wrong. I am interested in having America admit that we can do better, but we can only do better is if we are willing to look at what we have done and consider the consequences. Is it what we want? Is it the best that could be done?

I am not interested in making America “wrong.” Neither am I interested in making America “right,” according to a dualistic standard. I am interested in making America MORE, and that is what my Golden Age is about. But you cannot become more if you are not willing to consider that you could do better than you have done so far. You must be willing to transcend yourself. You must be willing to question status quo. You must be willing to admit that you can do better, but that you can only do better if you reach for a higher awareness. You cannot do better by clinging to status quo, by clinging to traditional values, by wanting to make America great again, without considering when it was great and why it declined, as you claim it has done.

An unholy alliance

This uniquely, in the democratic world, American quality of not wanting to look at ourselves and not think we could ever be wrong, or ever need to improve, or ever need to do something differently. This is a mindset that is holding back the manifestation of the Golden Age in America. You look back in Europe and see how much they had it, going back through the Middle Ages, the kings of Europe had that mindset. But many European nations have started to overcome it, especially after the exposure of the Holocaust that made many nations in Europe say: “Could this have happened here?”

And Americans have not quite been willing to look at: “Could a demagogue arise here?” At least, many Americans have not which is why they are supporting one. But again, many people are close to being willing to make that shift. Many people are willing to see the elite and see that it is primarily the elite that does not want to reevaluate, because they want to hold on to their position. There are also people who do not want to reevaluate. And why? Because they feel inferior, and they cannot bear to admit that they could be wrong, because they again are thinking in terms of right and wrong. Many feel inferior because, as I said, and as Mother Mary said, they do not want to transcend themselves. They do not want to improve themselves so they can keep up with society.

Here comes Donald Trump and tells them: “Oh, there is nothing wrong with you. The problem is outside of you. The problem is the aliens, the deep state, the government. But if you support me, I am going to fix it. I am going to make you great, because you are supporting me.” And suddenly they accept this. And now, they feel instead of being at the bottom of society, they are at the top of society. And how could they ever let go of this without having to admit that they were wrong about Trump? And if you cannot admit this, these people can be stuck for the rest of their lifetime.

A necessary shift

But you see, they are not enough to stop the progress when enough people see the dynamic I am talking about. Do enough people see it? Well, not yet, or it would have shifted. But of course, it is getting closer and closer almost every day. Because almost every day Trump does or says something that makes another group of people say: “Ah, that is not really what I voted for.”

Again, I am using this opportunity to project into the collective consciousness. And it is a unique opportunity, because when there is a celebration of one of these milestones in the history of a nation, there is a greater willingness of the nation to look back at its history, to look at its present state, to wonder about the future. I am grateful for you allowing me to use your chakras and auras to project this into the collective consciousness, where again, hopefully more and more people will suddenly shift and see: “Oh, now I see it. That is so obvious.” You see, again, as ascended masters, we are not trying to force anything upon people. We are seeking to help them shift so they see, and see: “Oh, this is the logical, natural next step. That is what we have to do.”

This is what to some degree happened with the Founding Fathers. First, there were those who saw: “We need to fight for independence from the British, because they are not going to give it to us.” Then, there were those after the Revolutionary War was won who said: “We have to come together and create the framework for a nation or we will not have a nation after a few years. It is obvious we need to do this.” And it was obvious to them that despite the special interests, they had to compromise enough that they could create a Constitution that attempted to raise the interests of “we the people” above the interests of “we the elite.”

With this, I have given you what I want to give in this installment. Do not think I am anywhere near done. But for now, I will give you what I can see you can handle and give you a break and we will see what comes next. You do understand, I hope, that we have said many, many things about America, both through this messenger and previous messengers. There simply comes a point where the law will not allow us to keep saying things if there are not some people who have heeded what has been said. That is why we do not have so much to say at this occasion, because so much has already been said.

And only when a critical mass of people tune in to what we have said—not necessarily by reading the teachings, but by tuning in to the ideas we have released—only then can we give more. We are actually quite restricted by the Cosmic Law, the Karmic Law, on what we can give at this particular juncture of the interdependent originations of the United States and the world. But still, I am very grateful for your willingness to be part of this release, so that it can be multiplied and magnified and reach more and more people. Therefore, I seal you in the Flame of Freedom that I am. Saint Germain I AM.

Back to Will There Be Another 250 Years?