EventDocument
Project 2025 (State Department chapter) calls for working with Mexico and Canada on 'a hemisphere-focused energy policy'
In the State Department chapter of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 ('Mandate for Leadership'), under the heading 'A hemisphere-centered approach to industry and energy', the authors write that 'the United States must work with Mexico, Canada, and other countries to develop a hemisphere-focused energy policy that will reduce reliance on distant and manipulable sources of fossil fuels'. It is the only passage in the roughly 900-page document that deals with Canadian energy, and it is framed as cooperation, not pressure.
- Date
- (known to the month)
- Kind
- Other
- Where
- United States
- Evidence
- Document: An official document: a bill, a filing, an agreement text. How evidence is weighed
- Who
- Heritage Foundation (Project 2025) (acted)
Sources
- Heritage Foundation (archive.org copy), “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (Project 2025), full text” (external site), . source record
Quotes
“the United States must work with Mexico, Canada, and other countries to develop a hemisphere-focused energy policy that will reduce reliance on distant and manipulable sources of fossil fuels, restore the free flow of energy among the hemisphere's largest producers, and work together to increase energy production”
From Heritage Foundation (archive.org copy): Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (Project 2025), full text, Department of State chapter, p. 184
Tested hypotheses: a thought experiment
Suppose Washington foresaw and wanted this. Would this event look any different than under the rival readings? This is a deliberately contrarian test, explained here, not the author’s belief. Judgments, not measurements.
Judged to fit the plain self-interest reading better than the foresight reading. What this means
| Reading | Fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| I0a Accident Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | A 2023 think-tank document says little about whether later policy was impulsive. |
| I0b Plain self-interest; Canada's response not considered Tested hypothesis (intent) | Fits weak | A cooperative, hemisphere-focused energy goal fits plain self-interest and welcomed foresight equally. |
| I1 Foreseen and welcomed, not the reason Tested hypothesis (intent) | Fits weak | A cooperative, hemisphere-focused energy goal fits plain self-interest and welcomed foresight equally. |
| I2 Foreseen and wanted (this level or higher) Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | The passage shows interest in Canadian energy but frames it as cooperation, not pressure; it neither supports nor contradicts pressure applied for that reason. |
| I3 Worked-out plan with specific targets Tested hypothesis (intent) | Against weak | The only passage on Canadian energy in a 900-page plan names no projects or timeline; a worked-out plan with targets is not observed where one might look for it. |
| R-annex Annexation Rival reading | Against weak | Framing Canada as a cooperative energy partner is somewhat awkward for an aim to weaken Canada, though it is a non-government document. |
| R-frag Fragmentation Rival reading | Against weak | Framing Canada as a cooperative energy partner is somewhat awkward for an aim to weaken Canada, though it is a non-government document. |
| R-weaken Weaken-Canada rivals (annexation or fragmentation) Rival reading | Against weak | Framing Canada as a cooperative energy partner is somewhat awkward for an aim to weaken Canada, though it is a non-government document. |
Logged against predictions
- P14: "Was it foreseen?" (foresight test 1) (logged 1 April 2023, logged only)