EventStatement
Alberta Prosperity Project leaders say they held a second meeting with State Department officials on 29 September 2025
Leaders of the Alberta Prosperity Project, a group campaigning for Alberta to secede from Canada, say they met State Department officials in Washington for a second time on 29 September 2025, after a first meeting on 22 April. Co-founder Dennis Modry, who told NBC News in February 2026 that he attended all three meetings, said they discussed the logistics of a transition to independence. 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
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 | A second meeting on the logistics of Alberta independence is consistent with US interest in fragmentation, but it is the group's own account, at staff level, with no commitments reported. |
| R-weaken Weaken-Canada rivals (annexation or fragmentation) Rival reading | Fits weak | A second meeting on the logistics of Alberta independence is consistent with US interest in fragmentation, but it is the group's own account, at staff level, with no commitments reported. |