Danielle Smith: Betraying Canada While Trump Targets Us?

Executive Summary

As a Calgary-based private intelligence firm, Prime Rogue Inc views Canadian sovereignty as being of paramount importance. Alberta's Premier. Danielle Smith, just issued a list of demands to the Canadian federal government which calls her loyalty to Canada into question. While Smith attempts to frame these demands as in line with Albertan economic sovereignty, something which Prime Rogue Inc supports, these demands are also at odds with a united Canadian response to the existential threat to Canada embodied by Donald Trump. As Smith continues to target Ottawa instead of Washington, we must ask whether Smith is a patriot actually attempting to protect Alberta and Canada or a proxy puppet of the Trump Administration, and the Maple MAGA movement. For now, unfortunately, it appears that Smith is running a US proxy war against Canada, and betraying our country.

Introduction: A House Divided

On March 20, 2025, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith took to Twitter to issue a political warning to Prime Minister Mark Carney and the rest of Canada. In a tweet that reads more like an ultimatum than a policy statement, she laid out a list of nine demands that she insists must be met within six months of the next federal election—regardless of which party wins—or risk what she calls an “unprecedented national unity crisis.”

Danielle Smith’s Full Tweet:

"At his request, I met with Prime Minister Mark Carney @MarkJCarney today. We had a very frank discussion in which I made it clear that Albertans will no longer tolerate the way we've been treated by the federal Liberals over the past 10 years.

I provided a specific list of demands the next Prime Minister, regardless of who that is, must address within the first six months of their term to avoid an unprecedented national unity crisis.

This includes:
• Guaranteeing Alberta full access to oil and gas corridors to the north, east, and west
• Repealing Bill C-69 (aka. “no new pipelines act”)
• Lifting the tanker ban off the BC coast
• Eliminating the oil and gas emissions cap, which is a production cap
• Scrapping the so-called Clean Electricity Regulations
• Ending the prohibition on single-use plastics
• Abandoning the net-zero car mandate
• Returning oversight of the industrial carbon tax to the provinces
• Halting the federal censorship of energy companies

I also made it clear that Alberta, as owner of the resource, will not accept an export tax or restriction of Alberta’s oil and gas to the United States, and that our province is no longer agreeable to subsidizing other large provinces who are fully capable of funding themselves. Lastly, I made it clear that federal mismanagement of Jasper and Banff national parks resulted in last year’s tragic wildfire in Jasper and is endangering Banff, and the situation must be rectified immediately.

With the federal election about to be called, I encourage all Albertans to get involved in what is likely one of the most pivotal and important elections in our nation’s history, and to support the party and candidates that have consistently advocated for freeing Alberta from federal overreach and the repeated economic attacks our province has faced from Ottawa over the past 10 years."

Her words are a direct attack on federal policies, particularly those introduced by Liberal governments over the past decade. The language of "economic attacks" and "freeing Alberta" is more than just campaign rhetoric—it’s a thinly veiled threat of deepening regional divides.

But the timing of Smith’s demands raises a far more pressing question: Is Alberta’s premier strengthening the province’s position in Canada, or undermining national unity at the exact moment when Canada needs to stand together against an existential economic and geopolitical threat from the United States?

The reality is that Donald Trump is back, and his second presidency is already shaping up to be even more hostile to Canada than his first. His administration has reintroduced tariffs on Canadian aluminum, lumber, and agricultural products. Republican-aligned media figures have openly discussed annexing Alberta. And yet, rather than acknowledging the real and immediate dangers of Trump’s economic warfare, Smith’s tweet frames Ottawa as the greater threat, as though Canada’s unity is a bigger problem than America’s aggression.

At a time when Canada must stand united to defend its economic sovereignty, Danielle Smith appears to be pulling in the opposite direction. Is she advocating for Alberta’s best interests, or is she flirting with a political realignment that places Alberta closer to Trump’s America than to Canada itself?

This article examines whether Smith’s latest political maneuver is a legitimate act of provincial advocacy or a dangerous step toward economic and political fragmentation—one that could leave Alberta vulnerable to U.S. influence at Canada’s expense.

Canada’s Moment of Crisis: Why Unity is Imperative

Danielle Smith’s ultimatum comes at a moment of unprecedented geopolitical and economic pressure on Canada. While Smith frames her list of demands as necessary for Alberta’s economic survival, they fail to acknowledge the larger existential threat facing Canada: a hostile and increasingly aggressive United States.

Under Donald Trump’s renewed presidency, the U.S. has already taken steps to undermine Canada’s economy and sovereignty. The reintroduction of tariffs, growing economic nationalism, and thinly veiled threats of annexation place Canada in a precarious position. At a time when national unity is essential for resisting American economic warfare, Smith’s rhetoric risks fracturing the country from within in line with ongoing American disinformation efforts and interference efforts targeting the Canadian 2025 Federal Election.

Trump’s Economic Warfare Against Canada

Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda is back, and this time, it’s even more aggressive. Within months of his return to power, his administration has:

Imposed new tariffs on Canadian aluminum, steel, lumber, and agricultural products, reigniting the Canada-U.S. trade war that defined his first term.
Threatened to renegotiate USMCA, signaling his intent to force Canada into a weaker trade position.
Floated energy sanctions that would target Canada’s oil exports if the U.S. deems them “non-compliant” with American energy interests.

Trump’s stance is clear: Canada is not a partner—it’s a competitor to be weakened.

Alberta’s energy sector is already heavily dependent on U.S. trade, and Trump’s protectionist policies will hurt, not help, Alberta’s oil industry. Yet, rather than preparing to defend Canadian economic sovereignty, Smith appears more interested in fighting Ottawa than recognizing the real threat emanating from Washington.

Annexation Rhetoric: Why Alberta is a U.S. Target

While economic tariffs may be the first stage of Trump’s strategy, the longer-term risk is far more insidious—Alberta is increasingly being framed as a U.S. asset, not a Canadian province.

Right-wing American media figures, Republican strategists, and even members of Congress have begun openly discussing the absorption of Alberta into the U.S. all the while the United States has funded a Maple MAGA fifth column in Canada. This rhetoric, once limited to fringe circles, is now entering the mainstream discourse in American conservative politics.

Why Alberta?

Energy Reserves: Alberta’s oil sands make it a prime target for U.S. economic expansion.
Ideological Alignment: Alberta’s political culture is more conservative than much of Canada, making it sympathetic to Trump’s populist movement.
Discontent with Ottawa: Growing Western alienation makes Alberta susceptible to separatist rhetoric, which American political actors can exploit.

In this context, Smith’s anti-Ottawa messaging becomes more than just provincial posturing—it creates an opening for American influence in Canadian politics. By framing Ottawa as Alberta’s primary adversary, she risks playing into the exact narrative that U.S. strategists want to cultivate: that Alberta would be better off under Washington than under Ottawa.

The Urgency of National Unity

Canada has faced economic aggression from the United States before, but the difference today is that internal divisions are more dangerous than ever. Historically, Canada has defended itself against U.S. dominance by presenting a united front:

Is Smith Strengthening or Sabotaging Canada?

Danielle Smith has every right to fight for Alberta’s interests, but at what cost? By focusing on domestic battles rather than external threats, she risks weakening Canada’s ability to stand up to U.S. economic warfare.

The question now is whether Alberta’s premier is advocating for a stronger Canada—or if she’s helping pave the way for American domination under the guise of “provincial rights.”

If Canada fails to present a united front, Trump’s economic aggression will not only hurt Alberta—it will fracture the country entirely. The real crisis is not Ottawa’s treatment of Alberta—it’s the looming U.S. assault on Canadian sovereignty. And in that fight, Smith appears to be punching in the wrong direction.

Breaking Down Smith’s Tweet: Partisan Posturing or National Betrayal?

Danielle Smith’s tweet is a political manifesto disguised as a provincial demand letter. On the surface, it presents a list of grievances that align with Alberta’s long-standing economic concerns—energy corridors, carbon taxes, and federal regulation. But a closer look reveals something more insidious:

A thinly veiled endorsement of the federal Conservative Party, aimed at rallying Alberta’s electoral base.
A strategic reframing of Ottawa—not Washington—as Alberta’s primary adversary, ignoring the existential threat posed by Trump’s America.
A direct challenge to Canada’s national unity, suggesting that Alberta could break from the federation if its demands aren’t met.

If this were simply about provincial advocacy, Smith’s approach might be understandable. But in a moment of growing U.S. aggression, her choice of enemies and escalatory language raise serious concerns about where her true loyalties lie.

Key Themes in Smith’s Statement

1. Economic Sovereignty or Political Grandstanding?

At the core of Smith’s demands is a push for Alberta’s economic independence, framed around energy policy. She calls for:

✅ Guaranteeing Alberta full access to oil and gas corridors to the north, east, and west.
✅ Repealing Bill C-69 ("no new pipelines act").
✅ Lifting the tanker ban off the BC coast.
✅ Eliminating the oil and gas emissions cap.
✅ Scrapping the so-called Clean Electricity Regulations.

These demands are not new—they align with Alberta’s long-standing fight for energy autonomy. But the aggressive framing and the context of Trump’s return make them more dangerous.

Reality Check: Trump does not support Alberta’s energy industry.
- He killed Keystone XL and has repeatedly used tariffs to undermine Canadian energy exports.
- His administration is more protectionist than the Liberals ever were, meaning Alberta’s reliance on the U.S. as a market is a vulnerability, not an advantage.

Yet Smith refuses to acknowledge this. By casting Ottawa—not Washington—as the sole enemy, she is deliberately misleading Albertans about where the real threats to their prosperity lie.

2. A Thinly Veiled Endorsement of the Conservative Party

Smith’s final paragraph is where her statement crosses from policy advocacy into outright electioneering:

"With the federal election about to be called, I encourage all Albertans to get involved in what is likely one of the most pivotal and important elections in our nation’s history, and to support the party and candidates that have consistently advocated for freeing Alberta from federal overreach."

This is as close as a sitting premier can get to endorsing Pierre Poilievre without saying his name.

The phrase “freeing Alberta from federal overreach” is Conservative campaign rhetoric—not neutral governance.
By framing the election as a battle for Alberta’s freedom, Smith is weaponizing separatist sentiment for partisan gain.

Why does this matter?

Smith is supposed to be the Premier of Alberta—not a federal campaign operative.
Her partisan intervention deepens regional polarization—at the exact moment Canada needs a unified response to Trump’s economic aggression.

This is not fighting for Alberta—this is playing into the hands of a Conservative electoral strategy that benefits from Western alienation.

3. The “National Unity Crisis” Threat: A Dangerous Precedent

Smith’s most inflammatory statement is her open threat of a national unity crisis:

"I provided a specific list of demands the next Prime Minister, regardless of who that is, must address within the first six months of their term to avoid an unprecedented national unity crisis."

This is not a policy demand—this is political blackmail.

What is she really saying?

If the next Prime Minister (even a Conservative) does not meet Alberta’s demands, the province could escalate toward separatism.
The phrase “unprecedented national unity crisis” implies that Alberta is willing to trigger a constitutional or economic confrontation.

Why is this dangerous?

It normalizes separatist rhetoric at a time when American strategists are actively looking for ways to divide Canada.
It undermines Alberta’s credibility as a good-faith participant in national governance.
It hands leverage to foreign actors (Trump and U.S. oil interests) who benefit from a weak, divided Canada.

This is not about defending Alberta. This is about creating chaos—and chaos, historically, has always benefited external powers over domestic interests.

Smith’s Statement is a Warning Sign

Danielle Smith has crossed a line.

✅ She is no longer simply advocating for Alberta—she is openly using separatist rhetoric for political leverage.
✅ She is downplaying the existential economic threat posed by Trump while scapegoating Ottawa.
✅ She is aligning herself with a Conservative electoral strategy, rather than working across political lines to defend Canada’s economic interests.

The big question now is: Is Smith acting in Alberta’s best interests—or setting it up for a long-term economic and political crisis?

If Alberta’s Premier is this willing to escalate a “national unity crisis”, we need to ask:

Who truly benefits from Alberta’s isolation?
Why is Smith avoiding any mention of Trump’s direct threats to Canada’s economy?
Is this the beginning of a broader movement to align Alberta with U.S. interests over Canadian sovereignty?

This is no longer just a provincial-federal dispute. This is a test of whether Canada can hold together in the face of external threats.

And Danielle Smith is playing a dangerous game with the future of the country.

Is Smith Willing to Side with Trump Over Canada?

Danielle Smith’s refusal to acknowledge the existential economic threat posed by Donald Trump is more than just political posturing—it raises serious concerns about whether she is willing to align Alberta with U.S. interests at the expense of Canada. While she presents her demands as a fight for provincial rights, her complete silence on Trump’s aggressive trade policies, past actions against Alberta’s energy industry, and America’s economic warfare against Canada suggests a troubling blind spot—or worse, a deliberate shift in allegiance.

At a time when Trump has made it clear he sees Canada as an economic rival, not a partner, Smith’s failure to position Alberta in solidarity with the rest of Canada leaves the province vulnerable to exploitation by U.S. interests. Instead of preparing for an economic fight against American protectionism, she is scapegoating Ottawa—a move that only strengthens Trump’s hand.

Ignoring Trump’s Hostility to Alberta’s Oil

Smith’s entire political identity is built around fighting for Alberta’s energy sector, yet she refuses to acknowledge that Donald Trump has historically been one of its biggest obstacles. Her demand that Ottawa lift federal restrictions on Alberta’s oil exports conveniently ignores that the greatest roadblock to Alberta’s energy success has come from Washington, not Ottawa.

Trump Killed Keystone XL—Not the Liberals

Trump cancelled Keystone XL in 2021, delivering a devastating blow to Alberta’s energy industry.
Instead of fighting to save the project, Trump prioritized U.S. oil production over Canadian imports.
The Biden administration later made this cancellation permanent, but the damage was already done under Trump’s leadership.

Trump’s Trade Policies Undermined Alberta’s Oil Sector

Trump imposed steel and aluminum tariffs that raised costs for Alberta’s pipeline infrastructure.
He threatened additional tariffs on Canadian oil under the guise of “American energy independence.”
His protectionist policies favored U.S. shale producers, leaving Alberta’s industry to struggle with lower market access and worse pricing.

Why Won’t Smith Acknowledge This?

Smith’s entire political argument collapses if she admits that a right-wing U.S. president is hurting Alberta’s economy more than Ottawa is.
Her failure to criticize Trump suggests that she is more interested in ideological alignment than economic reality.
By pushing Alberta toward a U.S.-friendly stance, she is setting up the province to be further exploited by American energy interests.

Instead of demanding Ottawa protect Alberta from Trump’s economic warfare, Smith is distracting Albertans by manufacturing an internal enemy—when the real one is across the border.

Failure to Address U.S. Meddling in Canadian Sovereignty

While Smith claims to fight for Alberta’s independence from Ottawa, she has nothing to say about American interference in Canadian politics. Her silence on U.S. political actors pushing for Alberta’s realignment with the U.S. is especially alarming.

The Growing U.S. Narrative: Absorb Alberta into America

For years, right-wing American politicians, media figures, and think tanks have been laying the groundwork for a push to annex Alberta. While it may have once sounded like a fringe idea, it is now being discussed openly in Republican circles.

U.S. conservative media frequently highlights Alberta’s dissatisfaction with Ottawa, portraying it as a province that would be “better off” under American rule.
Republican members of Congress have openly speculated about “integrating Alberta into the U.S. economy.”
American oil lobbyists have quietly funded separatist rhetoric in Alberta, knowing that a divided Canada benefits U.S. interests.

Yet, Smith refuses to call this out. Why?

Why is Smith More Concerned with Ottawa than Washington?

If Smith truly cared about Alberta’s independence, she would be fighting against all external interference—including from the U.S.
Instead, her silence on U.S. economic influence suggests a dangerous willingness to let Alberta be absorbed into Trump’s economic orbit.
This is not sovereignty—it’s submission to a foreign power.

Her failure to stand against U.S. influence leaves Alberta at risk of becoming an American economic colony, where its resources are extracted for U.S. gain while its political autonomy is gradually eroded by economic dependence.

Parallels to Past Political Movements: Who Stands to Gain?

Smith’s rhetoric and political maneuvering are eerily similar to historical cases where regions were strategically isolated before being economically absorbed into larger powers.

Lessons from History

Scotland and Brexit: The U.K. government fueled nationalist sentiment in Scotland, then used it as leverage in post-Brexit trade deals—leaving Scotland economically weaker.
Ukraine and Russia: Before Russia’s 2014 invasion, pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians spent years weakening Kyiv’s ties with the West, setting the stage for annexation efforts in Crimea and Donbas.
Texas and the U.S. in the 1800s: The U.S. first encouraged Texas to resist Mexican rule, then absorbed it into the U.S. after economic dependence made separation inevitable.

Could Alberta Be on the Same Path?

If Alberta continues to distance itself from Ottawa, it creates the perfect conditions for U.S. intervention.

✅ First, Alberta is politically isolated.
✅ Second, U.S. interests create economic dependence.
✅ Third, when the moment is right, U.S. figures push for economic alignment—then absorption.

If Smith’s long-term goal is to strengthen Alberta’s economic ties with the U.S. at the expense of its Canadian identity, then her actions start to make sense.

But if Albertans truly want independence, they should be demanding that their premier resist both Ottawa and Washington—not submit to one to escape the other.

The Warning Signs Are Clear

Danielle Smith’s refusal to confront the real threat to Alberta’s economy—Donald Trump—should set off alarm bells.

✅ She continues to portray Ottawa as Alberta’s greatest enemy, despite overwhelming evidence that Trump’s trade policies are far more damaging.
✅ She ignores the growing calls from U.S. conservative figures for Alberta to join the U.S., even though this would be the end of its sovereignty.
✅ She pushes Alberta toward a U.S.-aligned economic path, rather than positioning it for true energy independence within Canada.

So what happens next?
If Trump escalates economic pressure on Canada, Alberta will have two choices:

1️⃣ Stand with Canada against U.S. trade aggression.
2️⃣ Fall deeper into U.S. economic dependence—eventually becoming a pawn in America’s energy strategy.

Right now, Smith appears to be leading Alberta down the second path.

The biggest question is whether Albertans will recognize the danger before it’s too late.

Who Benefits from Alberta’s Isolation?

Danielle Smith frames her demands as a defense of Alberta’s economic future, but the deeper question is: Who actually benefits if Alberta distances itself from the rest of Canada?

It is easy to assume that Smith is simply advocating for Alberta’s best interests, but when you strip away the rhetoric, the biggest winners of her strategy aren’t Albertans—they’re foreign actors, corporate interests, and political opportunists who would profit from a weakened and divided Canada.

At a time when Alberta should be strengthening its position within Canada to push back against U.S. economic aggression, Smith’s rhetoric does the exact opposite—it creates the conditions for Alberta to become a pawn in a larger geopolitical game.

Foreign Influence: The U.S. Wants a Weak and Divided Canada

If Alberta were to move toward greater economic and political autonomy, who would it rely on for trade, investment, and security? The answer is obvious: The United States.

Why Does the U.S. Want a Fragmented Canada?

Easier Resource Extraction → If Alberta is economically detached from the rest of Canada, American companies gain greater control over its oil and gas sector.
Eliminating a Competitor → A fractured Canada means weaker economic competition for the U.S. in global energy markets.
Geopolitical Leverage → Washington benefits if Alberta is dependent on U.S. trade policies rather than having a strong bargaining position within a united Canada.

Right-wing U.S. politicians and conservative think tanks have long pushed the idea of Alberta as a natural extension of American energy policy. The more alienated Alberta becomes from Ottawa, the more influence U.S. interests can exert over its economic future.

The playbook here isn’t new—it’s a classic divide-and-conquer strategy.

If Alberta stops seeing itself as part of Canada’s national strategy, it has no choice but to rely on the U.S. market.
If Alberta relies on the U.S. market, it will have to accept American energy policies, pricing, and regulations—whether it likes it or not.
Over time, Alberta becomes more of an American economic dependency than a Canadian province.

This is not economic sovereignty—this is economic servitude to a foreign power.

Corporate Interests: Who Profits from Alberta’s Isolation?

Beyond U.S. geopolitical interests, there is another group that stands to make billions if Alberta distances itself from Canada: Big Oil and multinational corporations.

Why Do Corporations Benefit?

Regulatory Arbitrage → A politically isolated Alberta would be more vulnerable to corporate lobbying and deregulation efforts.
Higher Profit Margins → Without federal Canadian regulations, multinational energy firms could push for weaker environmental and labor protections.
Greater Political Influence → A fragmented Alberta means corporations have more leverage over provincial lawmakers—especially if Ottawa loses oversight.

Alberta’s energy sector is already dominated by foreign ownership:

Major U.S. oil companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron hold significant stakes in Alberta’s energy infrastructure.
Koch Industries has been quietly funding lobbying efforts in Alberta to push for deregulation and greater market access.
Chinese state-owned firms have historically invested in Alberta’s oil sands, meaning a weaker Alberta could become an even easier target for foreign acquisitions.

Smith presents her demands as pro-business, but in reality, her policies would make Alberta more susceptible to being exploited by multinational corporations and foreign investors.

When Alberta no longer has Ottawa acting as a buffer, corporate interests will fill that power vacuum—and they will extract maximum value with minimal regard for Albertans.

Who Loses? Albertans.

While U.S. policymakers and multinational corporations stand to gain, the people of Alberta will be left footing the bill.

1. Economic Dependence, Not Independence

Smith sells the idea that Alberta will be more free without federal oversight, but in practice, this would mean:

Greater reliance on U.S. markets and pricing.
More corporate ownership of Alberta’s resources.
Less ability to negotiate favorable energy policies at a national level.

Alberta’s economy is already deeply integrated into the U.S.—but it still benefits from the strength of Canada’s national economy. If Alberta distances itself, it loses negotiating power, not gains it.

2. Increased Vulnerability to Trade Wars

If Alberta separates its economic strategy from Canada, it will be far more vulnerable to U.S. tariffs, protectionist policies, and geopolitical leverage.

Example: U.S. Tariffs on Canadian Oil

If Trump decides to impose tariffs on Canadian oil (as he has hinted at in the past), Alberta will no longer have Ottawa negotiating on its behalf.
A provincial-level trade dispute with the U.S. would be disastrous, as Alberta has zero diplomatic leverage against Washington.

Alberta does not have the power of a sovereign country—it cannot unilaterally negotiate trade deals with the United States.

If Alberta weakens its ties with Canada, it will have less leverage in global markets and will be more exposed to U.S. economic aggression.

Bottom Line: A stronger Alberta within Canada has negotiating power. A weaker, isolated Alberta does not.

3. A Weaker Social Safety Net

One of Smith’s most controversial statements was her assertion that:

"Our province is no longer agreeable to subsidizing other large provinces who are fully capable of funding themselves."

This plays into the long-standing myth that Alberta is being “forced” to subsidize other provinces, but the reality is more complicated.

Alberta contributes heavily to federal equalization, but it also benefits from being part of a national system that supports healthcare, pensions, and emergency funding.
If Alberta were to financially detach itself from Canada, it would also lose access to federal economic stabilization programs, infrastructure investment, and national pension support.
This means more financial risk for Albertans, especially during economic downturns.

In her rush to demonize Ottawa, Smith is ignoring how much Alberta actually gains from being part of Canada.

Smith’s “Alberta-First” Strategy Helps Everyone But Albertans

Danielle Smith sells her rhetoric as a fight for provincial sovereignty, but in reality, her approach makes Alberta more vulnerable, not stronger.

Who benefits from her strategy?
✅ U.S. politicians who want to weaken Canada and absorb Alberta into the American economy.
✅ Foreign corporations who want less regulation and more resource extraction at Albertans' expense.
✅ Trump’s economic team, who see Canada as a competitor to be neutralized, not a partner to be strengthened.

Who loses?
❌ Albertans, who will face greater economic dependence on the U.S. and less bargaining power.
❌ Canadian sovereignty, as Alberta’s isolation weakens the country’s ability to negotiate on the world stage.
❌ Alberta’s long-term economic stability, as the province would be left at the mercy of foreign interests.

Smith’s vision is not about making Alberta independent—it’s about making it an economic client state of the United States.

If Albertans truly want to protect their province’s future, they need to ask themselves whether following Danielle Smith’s path leads to greater freedom—or to a future where Alberta is just another American economic outpost.

The Path Forward: A Real Strategy for Alberta and Canada

Danielle Smith’s approach to Alberta’s economic and political future is fundamentally flawed because it is built on manufactured grievances, short-term political calculations, and a failure to recognize the larger geopolitical threat posed by Trump’s America.

If Alberta truly wants to secure its economic future, it must abandon the illusion that aligning more closely with the United States will make it stronger. Instead, Alberta’s best path forward is one that leverages its energy wealth within a strong, united Canada—a strategy that protects its resources from U.S. exploitation while securing long-term stability for Albertans.

Here’s how Alberta can fight for its economic future without destroying Canada’s national unity.

1. Economic Strength Through National, Not Regional, Sovereignty

Smith’s biggest strategic mistake is her belief that Alberta can go it alone. The reality is:

Alberta’s economy is deeply integrated with the rest of Canada.

The province depends on national infrastructure for trade, investment, and labor mobility.
80% of its non-U.S. exports go to other Canadian provinces—not overseas.
The Canadian financial system underpins Alberta’s economic stability, from banking to capital investment.

A stronger Alberta needs a stronger Canada.

If Alberta wants better economic conditions, it must push for policies that strengthen Canada’s trade position overall—not just its own.
A unified Canadian energy strategy will give Alberta more leverage on the world stage—something it cannot achieve alone.
Canada has the diplomatic power to push back against Trump’s tariffs—a power Alberta does not have on its own.

Instead of manufacturing an internal crisis with Ottawa, Smith should be fighting for national economic resilience that benefits Alberta without making it a pawn in America’s game.

2. A Unified Energy Strategy to Reduce U.S. Dependence

Smith’s tweet makes no mention of how Alberta should prepare for Trump’s energy protectionism. This is a critical failure.

Instead of demanding deregulation, Alberta should be:

✅ Investing in Domestic Refining Capacity

Canada still exports crude oil to the U.S. for refining—only to buy it back at higher prices.
A national energy strategy that prioritizes refining in Canada would increase energy independence and reduce reliance on U.S. markets.

✅ Expanding Non-U.S. Export Routes

Asia and Europe need energy alternatives to Russia and the Middle East.
Instead of relying on U.S. buyers, Alberta should be pushing for greater export infrastructure to global markets.

✅ Leveraging National Power to Fight U.S. Tariffs

Trump has already proven he will use tariffs as a weapon against Canada.
Alberta alone cannot negotiate with the U.S.—but Canada can.
A united front between Alberta and Ottawa would put pressure on Washington to back down.

Smith’s current strategy of picking fights with Ottawa while ignoring U.S. hostility is self-defeating. If Alberta truly wants energy independence, it must reduce dependence on the U.S.—not deepen it.

3. Rejecting American-Style Partisan Warfare in Canada

Smith’s rhetoric is not just a threat to Alberta—it is a threat to Canadian democracy itself. By importing Trump-style populism into Canadian politics, she is deliberately fracturing the country at a moment when unity is essential.

The Real Danger: Alberta Becomes Canada’s Version of Texas

Texas is economically powerful but politically isolated from the U.S. federal government.
It has become a perpetual battleground of anti-federal politics, often hurting its own long-term economic prospects in favor of partisan posturing.
If Alberta follows this path, it risks becoming a permanent outlier in Canada—marginalizing itself rather than strengthening its position.

A Real Leader Would Seek Negotiation, Not Division

Smith’s hardline stance against Ottawa is not about policy—it’s about power.
A serious premier would be negotiating with the federal government, not issuing ultimatums that threaten national unity.
If Alberta wants real influence in Canada, it needs to engage in political strategy, not separatist rhetoric.

Smith’s Trump-style political theater weakens Alberta’s credibility, making it easier for U.S. interests to exploit the province in the long run via the Maple MAGA movement and other forms of political interference. If she truly cared about Alberta’s prosperity, she would be fighting for federal policies that benefit the province—not setting it up for long-term economic isolation.

Conclusion: Alberta’s Future is Canadian, Not American

Danielle Smith wants Albertans to believe they must choose between Alberta and Canada—but this is a false choice. The real decision is between:

✅ An Alberta that strengthens itself within Canada, fights for a stronger national economy, and secures real sovereignty over its energy future.
❌ An Alberta that isolates itself, becomes dependent on Trump’s America, and lets foreign interests dictate its economic policy.

What should Alberta do?
1️⃣ Work with the rest of Canada to fight U.S. economic aggression.
2️⃣ Expand refining and export capacity to reduce U.S. reliance.
3️⃣ Reject Trump-style partisan warfare and negotiate real federal concessions.

If Alberta truly wants prosperity, it must lead Canada—not break away from it.

Danielle Smith is offering Albertans a false promise of independence that only makes them weaker in the long run. The real path forward is not separatism, not U.S. alignment, but national leadership.

Alberta must choose: Will it be a pillar of Canadian strength—or a pawn in America’s game?