Canadian Separatists’ Meet With Trump Officials

A fringe separatist group from Canada’s oil-rich Alberta province has been secretly negotiating with Trump administration officials for half a billion dollars to break up America’s closest ally.

Story Snapshot

The Alberta Prosperity Project held three covert meetings with State Department officials since April 2025, requesting a $500 billion credit line to fund an independence referendum
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney publicly warned the Trump administration to respect Canadian sovereignty after the Financial Times exposed the secret talks
British Columbia Premier David Eby called the separatists’ outreach to foreign powers “treason” while Alberta’s own premier noted the overwhelming majority of Albertans oppose becoming a US state
The Trump administration denies making commitments but confirms the meetings occurred, maintaining they were routine civil society engagements
A counter-petition opposing Alberta independence collected 438,568 signatures, demonstrating significant public opposition to separation

When Routine Meetings Become Diplomatic Incidents

The Alberta Prosperity Project, a far-right separatist organization, began its Washington courtship in April 2025. Over nine months, APP representatives sat down with State Department officials three times, according to Financial Times reporting that ignited a sovereignty firestorm. The group’s ask was anything but modest: a $500 billion credit facility from the US Treasury Department. APP legal counsel Jeff Rath claimed strong relationships with Trump administration officials and planned another meeting for February 2026. The timing aligned suspiciously with Trump’s repeated public musings about making Canada the 51st state.

State Department spokespersons dismissed the gatherings as typical civil society outreach where no commitments were made. White House officials echoed this line. A source familiar with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s thinking stated neither he nor other Treasury officials knew about any credit facility proposal. Yet the meetings happened, the Financial Times confirmed them, and another session was scheduled. The administration’s position resembled having your cake while insisting you never entered the bakery.

The Sovereignty Line Canadian Leaders Drew

Prime Minister Carney delivered an unambiguous message: the US administration must respect Canadian sovereignty. He noted Trump had never raised Alberta separatism in their direct conversations, suggesting the president preferred letting subordinates handle the sensitive outreach. Carney’s warning reflected alarm that a foreign power would entertain, let alone encourage, forces seeking to dismember Canada. Alberta itself is Carney’s birthplace, adding personal stakes to the political calculation.

British Columbia Premier David Eby deployed sharper language. He characterized the APP’s approach as treason, an old-fashioned word for seeking foreign assistance to break up the nation. Eby acknowledged Canadians’ rights to express opinions and vote in referendums, but drew a firm boundary at soliciting foreign intervention. Even Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who had lowered referendum thresholds despite personally opposing independence, had her spokesperson emphasize that overwhelming majorities of Albertans rejected becoming a US state. The political class presented a united front against external meddling.

What Half a Trillion Dollars Buys in Credibility

The $500 billion figure deserves scrutiny. This extraordinary sum exceeds many nations’ GDP and represents serious intent or spectacular delusion. For context, Alberta’s entire provincial budget runs approximately $73 billion annually. The APP apparently believed the US Treasury Department might front seven years of Alberta’s complete government spending to facilitate a referendum. Treasury Secretary Bessent had publicly praised Alberta’s oil and gas resources, suggesting US pipelines could benefit from Alberta’s energy wealth, which may have encouraged separatist ambitions.

APP co-founder Dennis Modry defended the initiative as noble pursuit of self-determination, freedom, and prosperity. This framing ignored that Albertans already enjoy these qualities within Canada, a stable democracy with strong property rights and the rule of law. The separatist movement required nearly 178,000 signatures to trigger a referendum under Smith’s lowered thresholds. Meanwhile, the Alberta Forever Canada counter-petition collected 438,568 signatures opposing independence. The numbers suggested the APP represented a vocal minority seeking amplification through foreign backing rather than a genuine popular movement.

The Resource Calculation Behind Separatist Dreams

Alberta holds Canada’s oil sands, containing vast petroleum reserves that have attracted American commercial and strategic interest for decades. The province produces approximately 3.7 million barrels of oil daily, much of it flowing to US refineries through existing pipeline infrastructure. Control of these resources without Canadian federal oversight might appeal to certain American interests, particularly an administration that views territorial expansion as viable policy. Trump’s simultaneous interest in Greenland and the Panama Canal revealed a transactional approach to geography and sovereignty.

The separatist pitch likely emphasized energy security and resource access, familiar themes in US-Canada relations. Previous disputes over pipelines, particularly Keystone XL, demonstrated how Alberta’s oil could become political leverage. An independent Alberta theoretically could negotiate directly with Washington, eliminating federal Canadian oversight and environmental regulations. This scenario would fundamentally alter North American energy markets and geopolitics, though it remained deeply uncertain whether Albertans actually wanted such upheaval.

Where Plausible Deniability Meets Strategic Ambiguity

The Trump administration’s response employed careful language. Officials acknowledged meeting with “civil society types” while denying commitments. This phrasing allowed continued engagement while maintaining official distance. The administration could claim routine diplomatic practice while the APP could claim access and attention. Both narratives served their purposes. The planned February 2026 meeting suggested the relationship would continue despite public controversy and Canadian government objections.

This approach created maximum flexibility for the administration. If Alberta separatism gained momentum, the groundwork for US support existed. If the movement collapsed, the administration bore no commitment or embarrassment. Meanwhile, the mere fact of these meetings empowered a fringe movement, giving the APP credibility and attention it could never achieve domestically. The diplomatic damage to US-Canada relations appeared acceptable collateral to an administration already publicly discussing Canadian annexation.

The Precedent That Should Concern Everyone

The broader implications extend beyond Alberta. If the United States government entertains and potentially supports separatist movements in allied democracies, it establishes a dangerous precedent. Quebec separatism, Scottish independence, Catalonian movements, and countless other regional independence campaigns worldwide could reasonably expect similar consideration if energy resources or strategic value justified American interest. The international order depends partly on respecting territorial integrity of established nations, particularly stable democracies and military allies.

Canada and the United States share the world’s longest undefended border, integrated supply chains, and mutual defense commitments through NORAD and NATO. Undermining Canadian territorial integrity serves no legitimate American interest and damages trust essential to continental security. The APP meetings, regardless of their ultimate outcome, have already accomplished harm by demonstrating that foreign-backed separatism receives consideration in Washington. Canadian unity and sovereignty should not depend on the whims of American administrations or the resource calculations of fringe political movements seeking shortcuts to relevance through foreign patronage.