EventStatement
Arthur Herman (Hudson Institute) makes 'The Case for a US-Canada Superstate', saying a North American energy bloc 'would dominate global markets'
In an essay published by The National Interest and posted by the Hudson Institute on 8 March 2025, Arthur Herman argued that the United States and Canada are "on the brink" of what futurist Herman Kahn would call a US-Canada "superstate". Energy was the first of four areas he listed: "A North American energy bloc, including LNG exports and cross-border pipelines like the still-suspended XL Pipeline, would dominate global markets as never before." He mentioned Trump's 25% tariff on Canadian goods and 10% on Canadian energy among moves that had "alienated some, inspired others, and stunned nearly everyone."
- Date
- Kind
- Statement
- Where
- United States
- Evidence
- Statement: Something was said. Weighted lowest: words cost less than actions. How evidence is weighed
- Who
- Hudson Institute (acted); Arthur Herman (acted)
Sources
- Hudson Institute, “The Case for a US-Canada Superstate (National Interest, reposted by Hudson)” (external site), . source record
Quotes
“A North American energy bloc, including LNG exports and cross-border pipelines like the still-suspended XL Pipeline, would dominate global markets as never before”
From Hudson Institute: The Case for a US-Canada Superstate (National Interest, reposted by Hudson), paragraph beginning "Taken together, the United States and Canada"
Claims that rest on this event
- 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.
A merger/superstate framing, not partnership.
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 foresight reading better than the plain self-interest reading. What this means
| Reading | Fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| I0a Accident Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | An essay on a US-Canada energy bloc fits the self-interest readings equally; it does not tie the bloc to pressure on Canada. |
| I0b Plain self-interest; Canada's response not considered Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | An essay on a US-Canada energy bloc fits the self-interest readings equally; it does not tie the bloc to pressure on Canada. |
| I1 Foreseen and welcomed, not the reason Tested hypothesis (intent) | Fits weak | Consistent with US-aligned voices welcoming more cross-border pipelines and LNG; commentary, not policy. |
| I2 Foreseen and wanted (this level or higher) Tested hypothesis (intent) | Fits weak | Consistent with a US-aligned interest in Canadian energy capacity, but the essay does not say pressure is the means; commentary only. |
| I3 Worked-out plan with specific targets Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | An essay on a US-Canada energy bloc fits the self-interest readings equally; it does not tie the bloc to pressure on Canada. |
| R-annex Annexation Rival reading | Fits weak | Consistent with a merger reading: the essay argues for a US-Canada 'superstate'; a think-tank essay, not policy. |
| R-frag Fragmentation Rival reading | Neutral weak | An essay on a US-Canada energy bloc fits the self-interest readings equally; it does not tie the bloc to pressure on Canada. |
| R-weaken Weaken-Canada rivals (annexation or fragmentation) Rival reading | Fits weak | Consistent with a reading in which Canada's separate standing is diminished, via the 'superstate' idea; commentary only. |