Which Alberta separatist groups met U.S. officials and what evidence did they provide of funding discussions?
Executive summary
The only separatist organization documented in the reporting as having met with U.S. officials is the Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), which says its delegates held multiple meetings in Washington with members of the Trump administration (including State Department representatives) and sought to discuss how the U.S. could support an independent Alberta; APP figures and spokespeople have publicly described talks that included a proposed $500‑billion credit facility to backstop a newly independent Alberta [1] [2] [3]. Sources confirm meetings but no public record names specific U.S. officials or demonstrates an executed funding commitment from Washington [4] [2] [5].
1. Who showed up in Washington: the Alberta Prosperity Project and its public claims
Reporting consistently identifies the Alberta Prosperity Project—a grassroots separatist group advocating an Alberta independence referendum—as the delegation that travelled to Washington and met with U.S. officials on multiple occasions since last April, with APP legal counsel Jeffrey (Jeff) Rath saying APP delegates attended “very high‑level” meetings and that the group has been to Washington at least three times [1] [4] [6]. APP spokespeople have framed the trips as “fact‑finding” and confidential, and Rath has repeatedly declined to disclose the names of the U.S. officials present while telling media that some meetings lasted hours and one took place in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) [1] [5] [6].
2. What APP says was discussed: the $500‑billion credit facility and “support” scenarios
Multiple outlets report APP raised the idea of a very large financial backstop—a $500‑billion credit facility or loan—to cushion Alberta during a transition to independence, a figure APP representatives say was discussed as a hypothetical mechanism the U.S. could provide to “bankroll the province” if a referendum succeeded [3] [7] [2]. APP legal counsel has described the talks as exploring “ways the U.S. government could support Alberta independence when the timing was right,” language that some sources treat as indicating solicitation of financing while APP calls the conversations academic and exploratory [7] [8].
3. What evidence exists beyond APP’s account: corroboration, denials and secrecy
Independent corroboration in the public record is limited: reporting from the Financial Times and summaries in other outlets document that meetings took place and quote APP figures and some U.S. commentary, but none of the public reporting provides named U.S. officials who committed funds, and U.S. agencies have publicly denied making commitments while confirming contacts with civic groups are routine [2] [9] [4]. APP itself has invoked confidentiality agreements to refuse naming participants, and that opacity is why media accounts rely heavily on APP’s narrative about the $500‑billion proposal and on isolated U.S. comments such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s public remarks that Alberta could be a “natural partner” [4] [10] [2].
4. Political context and competing interpretations of motive and risk
Canadian premiers and national commentators have reacted strongly—B.C. Premier David Eby called the reported outreach “treason” for seeking foreign assistance in a domestic secessionist campaign—while other analysts warn the meetings could reflect U.S. leverage tactics rather than a binding U.S. plan to fund secession [11] [10] [5]. Some commentators frame the APP as a fringe, far‑right movement seeking attention and outside backing [12] [8], whereas APP and its defenders portray the strikes as legitimate diplomatic outreach to explore economic realities; the discrepancy underlines both the political volatility of the story and the lack of documentary evidence of a concrete U.S. financing pledge [1] [8].
5. What reporting does not prove and where uncertainty remains
The record shows APP delegations met U.S. officials and publicly reported that funding mechanisms—including a $500‑billion credit facility—were discussed, but the reporting does not supply documentary proof that U.S. officials committed to or promised financing, nor does it identify the named U.S. participants beyond Appalachian descriptions of “very high‑level” contacts and one claim of a SCIF meeting; therefore the key factual claims rest principally on APP’s testimony and on reporting that cites anonymous U.S. sources and official denials [2] [4] [5]. Until leaked documents, official minutes, or named confirmations emerge, the evidence of formal U.S. funding discussions remains asserted by APP and reported by outlets that relied in part on unnamed sources and APP statements [7] [1] [2].