EventStatement
Alberta Prosperity Project leaders say they held the first of three meetings with State Department officials on 22 April 2025
Leaders of the Alberta Prosperity Project, a group campaigning for Alberta to secede from Canada, say they met State Department officials in Washington on 22 April 2025, the first of three meetings (the others on 29 September and 16 December 2025). Co-founder Dennis Modry told NBC News in February 2026 that the talks covered how an independent Alberta would handle currency, border security, pensions, taxes and debt. The meetings were not public until the Financial Times reported them in late January 2026. A senior State Department official told NBC News there had only been staff-level meetings and no commitments were made; a White House official said no support or commitments were conveyed.
- Date
- Kind
- Other
- Where
- United States
- Evidence
- Statement: Something was said. Weighted lowest: words cost less than actions. How evidence is weighed
- Who
- United States federal government (acted); US Department of State (acted); Alberta Prosperity Project (subject)
Sources
- NBC News, “Canadian separatists optimistic after meetings with Trump officials” (external site), . source record
- CNN, “A separatist group is asking for Trump's help to split from Canada. Here's what we know” (external site), . paywalled source record
Claims that rest on this event
- Fragmentation (breaking Canada up through its provinces and separatists) and the thought experiment's 'foreseen and wanted' build-out need opposite things from Ottawa: a wanted build-out needs a strong Ottawa that passes C-39 and overrides holdouts, fragmentation a weak one. So the two can be told apart.
US officials held staff-level meetings with an Alberta separatist group, the kind of contact fragmentation would involve; the US says no commitments were made.
- Fragmentation is a live rival. One act counts toward it under our test, and none weakens Ottawa's ability to legislate. The act: three State Department meetings in 2025 with the Alberta Prosperity Project, a separatist group, which the US government has confirmed. It says they were staff-level, with no senior officials and no commitments, and that there will be no further meeting. Our test counts any confirmed US contact with separatists, so these count, although nothing in the record shows US support behind them. One approach is logged but not counted: in spring 2026 Quebec was approached from the US side for a separate deal on USMCA-linked sectors, which Radio-Canada described as an attempt to go around trade talks with Ottawa. Premier Christine Fréchette confirmed the approach in September 2026 and said she refused at once, without saying who made it. Québecor media, citing two Quebec government sources, said the US embassy in Ottawa made it, and CP24 reported that it touched tariffs including aluminum; neither detail is confirmed. The test counts such an offer only once we know who made it and on whose behalf.
First of the three meetings (22 April 2025, per the separatists), kept out of public view until January 2026.
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.
Non-discriminating: this event fits the plain self-interest reading and the foresight reading equally. It does not tell them apart. What this means
| Reading | Fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| I0a Accident Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | Staff-level meetings with a separatist group, reported by the group itself, say nothing about foresight of Canada's build-out response. |
| I0b Plain self-interest; Canada's response not considered Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | Staff-level meetings with a separatist group, reported by the group itself, say nothing about foresight of Canada's build-out response. |
| I1 Foreseen and welcomed, not the reason Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | Staff-level meetings with a separatist group, reported by the group itself, say nothing about foresight of Canada's build-out response. |
| I2 Foreseen and wanted (this level or higher) Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | Staff-level meetings with a separatist group, reported by the group itself, say nothing about foresight of Canada's build-out response. |
| I3 Worked-out plan with specific targets Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | Staff-level meetings with a separatist group, reported by the group itself, say nothing about foresight of Canada's build-out response. |
| R-annex Annexation Rival reading | Neutral weak | Staff-level meetings with a separatist group, reported by the group itself, say nothing about foresight of Canada's build-out response. |
| R-frag Fragmentation Rival reading | Fits weak | State Department staff meeting Alberta secessionists is consistent with interest in Canada's fragmentation, but the account comes from the group, at staff level, with no commitments reported. |
| R-weaken Weaken-Canada rivals (annexation or fragmentation) Rival reading | Fits weak | State Department staff meeting Alberta secessionists is consistent with interest in Canada's fragmentation, but the account comes from the group, at staff level, with no commitments reported. |