Norms Impact
Canadian Separatists Reveal Jaw-Dropping Details of Secret Meetings With Trump Teams
Secret State Department-linked outreach to separatists inside a close ally breaks the norm that U.S. power is not used to meddle with a partner’s territorial integrity behind closed doors.
Feb 12, 2026
⚖ Legal Exposure
Sources
Summary
Far-right Canadian separatists say they held three meetings last year with Trump administration officials, including sessions they claim occurred at the State Department in Washington, D.C. The conduct signals a U.S. executive-branch posture that entertains engagement with separatist actors inside a close ally while senior officials dispute the meetings’ level and purpose. The practical consequence is added strain on U.S.–Canada relations and a normalization of backchannel contacts that can be used to pressure allied sovereignty without formal policy accountability.
Reality Check
This kind of executive-branch engagement with separatists in a close ally sets a precedent for using U.S. government access as leverage to destabilize a neighbor’s sovereignty, and it ultimately weakens the guardrails that protect our own rights from politically motivated state power. On the facts provided, criminal liability is not clearly established: absent evidence of payments, directives, or covert operations, it is unlikely to fit federal bribery or corruption statutes (18 U.S.C. § 201) or the foreign-agent framework (FARA, 22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.), though any undisclosed coordination or material support could change that analysis. Even without a prosecutable case, the reported secrecy, refusal to name participants, and discussion of currency and military arrangements reflect a governance failure—foreign policy by backchannel with radical actors that evades democratic accountability and invites retaliation against our institutions and alliances.
Legal Summary
The article alleges highly unusual, clandestine contacts between foreign separatists and U.S. executive-branch personnel, including discussion of major sovereign-finance and security issues and prior reporting of a sought $500B credit facility. However, it does not allege any payment/thing of value to officials or a concrete exchange for an official act, keeping this primarily in the realm of politicization/ethics and investigative red flags rather than clearly prosecutable bribery. Exposure is therefore best classified as a serious irregularity requiring scrutiny, not a substantiated quid-pro-quo scheme on these facts.
Legal Analysis
<h3>18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bribery / Illegal Gratuities)</h3><ul><li>The article describes clandestine meetings between a foreign separatist nonprofit and purportedly “very, very senior” U.S. officials, but it alleges no payment, thing of value, or personal benefit to any U.S. official tied to any official act.</li><li>Absent any alleged transfer of value or official action taken in exchange, the core quid-pro-quo elements are not met on the stated facts.</li></ul><h3>18 U.S.C. § 1346 & § 1343 (Honest Services / Wire Fraud)</h3><ul><li>Engaging foreign separatists in unusual, covert meetings could raise politicization/abuse-of-office concerns, but honest-services fraud generally requires bribery or kickbacks; none are alleged.</li><li>No alleged misuse of U.S. wires to execute a bribery/kickback scheme is described in the article.</li></ul><h3>22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq. (FARA – Foreign Agents Registration Act)</h3><ul><li>The separatist group and its attorney describe repeated contacts with U.S. executive-branch personnel and seeking major financial support (a previously reported $500B credit facility), which can create FARA-adjacent scrutiny if any U.S.-side persons act as “agents of a foreign principal” in political activities.</li><li>The article does not allege any U.S. person agreed to represent the group, lobby, or act subject to the group’s direction/control—key elements remain unalleged.</li></ul><h3>5 C.F.R. Part 2635 (Federal Ethics Rules – Appearance / Misuse of Position)</h3><ul><li>Secret meetings with foreign separatists at State Department headquarters (as claimed by the separatists) and public comments by a Treasury Secretary that arguably “stoke” secession narratives present significant appearance-of-impropriety and foreign-policy process concerns.</li><li>The State Department disputes senior-level attendance and any commitments, underscoring an irregularity/appearance issue rather than a clearly transactional one on these facts.</li></ul><b>Conclusion:</b> The described conduct most strongly presents procedural/foreign-policy irregularity and ethics/appearance risk rather than a money-access-official-action quid-pro-quo; criminal public-corruption charges are not supported on the article’s stated facts, though the clandestine nature and alleged pursuit of major financial support warrant investigative scrutiny.</p>
Detail
<p>Dennis Modry, a co-founder of the Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), told NBC News the group met three times last year with “very, very senior” Trump administration officials, with meetings in April, September, and December, and a fourth meeting discussed for the coming weeks.</p><p>Jeffrey Rath, the separatists’ attorney, said the meetings were hosted at the State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. Modry said discussion topics included border security, the Canadian pension plan, taxes, national debt, switching to the U.S. dollar, and developing an independent Alberta military, including whether the U.S. would work with Alberta on that development.</p><p>Modry and Rath declined to identify attendees, citing a pre-set condition of the meetings, and Modry said the purpose was not to advocate Alberta becoming a U.S. state. A senior State Department official told NBC News there will not be another meeting, that no senior officials attended, and that no commitments were made. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly discussed rumors of an Alberta referendum while speaking with Real America’s Voice in Davos.</p>