When Foreign Powers Court Your Separatists

Three meetings. That's how many times Alberta separatist leaders have sat down with US State Department officials since last April, according to new reports. As Prime Minister Mark Carney scrambles to defend Canadian sovereignty, a question emerges: What happens when foreign powers start courting your domestic independence movements?

The revelation comes at a moment when US-Canada relations are already strained. President Trump has repeatedly threatened to make Canada the "51st state," while his Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently praised Alberta's "independent character" and suggested the province might be better off joining the US. Now we know these weren't just throwaway comments—there appear to be actual conversations happening behind closed doors.

The Separatist Courtship

The Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), which campaigns for provincial independence, has been making regular trips to Washington. Their goal? Securing a potential $500 billion credit line to support Alberta if a future independence referendum succeeds. It's a staggering sum that would dwarf most international development packages.

Jeffrey Rath, an APP leader, confirmed the group is seeking another meeting with US officials next month. The timing isn't coincidental—Alberta could face a referendum later this year if separatists gather the required 178,000 signatures under the province's citizen-initiative rules.

Treasury Secretary Bessent's comments reveal the economic logic driving American interest. "Alberta has a wealth of natural resources, but they [the Canadian government] won't let them build a pipeline to the Pacific," he said. "I think we should let them come down into the US." The subtext is clear: Washington sees an opportunity to access Alberta's energy resources more directly.

The Numbers Behind the Anger

Alberta's frustration with Ottawa isn't new, but the scale of economic grievance is striking. The province contributes 15% of Canada's GDP despite housing only 12% of its population. It produces over 80% of Canada's oil and 60% of its natural gas, yet receives zero federal equalization payments while Quebec and Manitoba get billions.

Recent polling shows about 30% of Albertans would support starting the independence process, though roughly one-fifth view such a vote as symbolic protest rather than genuine desire for separation. Still, that's roughly a million people—a constituency large enough to matter in any political calculation.

The economic grievances run deep. Many Albertans feel federal environmental regulations, carbon pricing, and pipeline approval processes deliberately constrain their energy sector. As a landlocked province, Alberta depends on federal cooperation to reach global markets, making Ottawa's decisions feel like economic strangulation.

A Dangerous Precedent

Canadian leaders are treating this as more than political theater. British Columbia Premier David Eby used the word "treason" to describe Albertans seeking foreign assistance to break up Canada. "To go to a foreign country and to ask for assistance in breaking up Canada, there's an old-fashioned word for that," he said.

But Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, long a Trump supporter who visited Mar-a-Lago in January, refuses to condemn separatist sentiment. She speaks of "legitimate grievances" and won't "demonize or marginalize a million of my fellow citizens." Her stance reveals the political tightrope facing regional leaders caught between federal loyalty and local frustration.

The Trump administration's approach mirrors its strategy elsewhere. In Greenland, US officials have similarly cultivated lists of locals supportive of American annexation, prompting Denmark to summon the top US diplomat in Copenhagen. The pattern suggests a deliberate strategy of testing separatist sentiment in strategically valuable territories.

The Sovereignty Question

What makes this situation particularly complex is the legal framework surrounding potential Alberta independence. Even if a referendum passes, the federal government must first determine whether the question was clear and the result represented a genuine majority under Canada's Clarity Act. Only then would negotiations begin on dividing assets, debt, borders, and Indigenous rights.

This creates a gray zone where foreign powers can engage with separatist movements without immediately triggering international law concerns about territorial integrity. The US can claim it's simply meeting with civil society groups while building relationships that could prove valuable if political circumstances change.

Prime Minister Carney's response—expecting the US to "respect Canadian sovereignty"—sounds almost quaint given the reality of great power competition. When energy resources worth trillions are at stake, diplomatic niceties may matter less than economic opportunity.