Event2023Document

Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership calls for a cooperative hemispheric energy policy with Canada and Mexico

The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership (2023), in its Department of State chapter (printed p. 184; PDF p. 216), says the United States must work with Mexico, Canada and other countries on a "hemisphere-focused energy policy". The framing is cooperative: it does not tie the goal to pressure on Canada or predict how Canada would respond. The Department of Energy chapter does not mention Canada, and the free-trade chapter criticises the 2018 Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs imposed on Canada, Europe and other allies.

Date: 2023 (known to the year)
Kind: Statement
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)

Articles that cite this record

An awkward response

Sources

Heritage Foundation, “Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership (full PDF)” (external site), 2023. 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: Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership (full PDF), Department of State chapter, printed p. 184 (PDF p. 216)

Claims that rest on this event

SupportsTested hypothesis: intent
In the foresight thought experiment: before Canada's response, what US voices wanted was a cooperative build-out framed as partnership (Project 2025's call for a hemispheric energy policy 'with Mexico, Canada', cross-border permitting bills, partnership resolutions in Congress), not one produced by pressure. None of it ties the build-out to tariffs.
Cooperative framing.

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 policy document; on this reading it fits equally with the others.
I0b Plain self-interest; Canada's response not considered Tested hypothesis (intent)	Fits weak	A call for a hemisphere-focused energy policy with Canada and Mexico is consistent with plain US interest in regional energy supply.
I1 Foreseen and welcomed, not the reason Tested hypothesis (intent)	Fits weak	Interest in North American energy cooperation is consistent with a US that would welcome more Canadian energy, but the framing is cooperative and does not tie it to pressure.
I2 Foreseen and wanted (this level or higher) Tested hypothesis (intent)	Neutral weak	A 2023 policy document; on this reading it fits equally with the others.
I3 Worked-out plan with specific targets Tested hypothesis (intent)	Against weak	The document sets no Canadian targets or timelines and its trade chapter criticises tariffs on Canada; a worked-out pressure plan is not observed.
R-annex Annexation Rival reading	Against weak	Treating Canada as a partner country in a cooperative energy policy fits an annexation aim poorly.
R-frag Fragmentation Rival reading	Against weak	Cooperation with Canada as a country fits a fragmentation aim poorly.
R-weaken Weaken-Canada rivals (annexation or fragmentation) Rival reading	Against weak	A cooperative framing with Canada as a partner fits a weaken-Canada aim poorly.