Viewers of our most recent spectacle may recall our query about plans to engineer a North American Union—a supranational bloc in the mold of the European Union—following once-again-soon-to-be-President Donald Trump’s cheeky rhetoric since late November about adding Canada to the U.S. as a 51st state, which in December developed into his expressed interest in acquiring Greenland as a U.S. territory from Denmark (in part for its critical mineral wealth) and in reasserting control over the Panama Canal.
Though his rhetoric struck a favorable chord with Canadian capitalist and media personality Kevin O’Leary, the recently resigned Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau naturally rejected Trump’s proposal, as did Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen—whose Defense Minister coincidentally announced an ~$1.5 billion increase to Denmark’s spending on Greenland’s defense—while Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino asserted his country’s sovereignty over the canal, which the country gained in 1999 under a neutrality treaty guaranteeing equal access for all nations. However, Trump’s comments nonetheless signal a potential shift in U.S. foreign policy, in addition to raising long dormant concerns about plans for a North American Union.

(Interestingly, I learned yesterday from Daeha Ko that this isn’t the first time in U.S. history that the country’s officials have discussed purchasing Greenland, with internal discussions about the takeover springing up in the presidential administrations of 1867, 1910, and 1946, with Secretary of State William H. Seward—who purchased Alaska from Russia—nearly completing negotiations to purchase both Greenland and Iceland from Denmark in 1868. Ko proposes that, since the Northwest Passage along Canada’s northern coast is now ice-free for much of the year, with Greenland therefore expected to become a major stop along that passage, and with security requirements in the region expected to increase almost exponentially. Accordingly, U.S. interests for national security and strategy may motivate Trump’s interest in establishing a sovereign claim to the area—and of course it’s unlikely that Canada would going to give up any island.)
The aforementioned conspiracy theory of the North American Union posits (more or less) that the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico have been secretly working to merge into a single superstate, eliminating national sovereignty and creating a unified currency, often referred to as the “Amero.” Proponents of the theory argue that this integration was previously advanced through trade agreements like NAFTA and policies that supposedly erode national borders. Of course, it’s interesting that Trump would stoke fresh fears over a North American Union, given that NAFTA’s succesor, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) replaced NAFTA in 2020, fulfilled Tump’s 2016 campaign promise to overhaul what he called the “worst trade deal ever made.”
Certainly critics will point out a lack of credible evidence supporting the existence of any plan for a North American Union, and would suggest the theory has been fueled by concerns over globalization and loss of national identity, which allowed it to gain traction in certain political and fringe circles. However, those critics may not be aware yet of similar proposals in history: for example, the “American Technate” championed by the Technocracy movement during the Great Depression, which advocated for a technocratic society led by engineers and technicians and aimed to replace capitalism and representative government with scientific planning, emphasizing energy-based economics and centralized control.
Under Howard Scott, the movement proposed authoritarian measures, including strict economic controls and isolationism, and territorial expansion to create a “Technate of America” encompassing North America, Central America, the Caribbean, and beyond.
Though of course the Technocracy movement didn’t succeed in founding any such Technate, it’s interesting to note that the map of their proposal bears a striking resemblance to the appearance of North America in Maurice Gomberg’s 1942 Post-War New World Map, which proposed a radical reorganization of global governance following an Allied victory in World War II while advocating for a “New World Moral Order” for lasting peace, security, and justice.
Gomberg’s vision divided the world into federations such as the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of Europe, and others, while quarantining Axis nations like Germany, Italy, and Japan under strict international oversight. The plan called for demilitarization, nationalization of resources, and establishing a World League of Nationalities to ensure global cooperation and peace enforcement. Though controversial, the map reflected optimistic socialist ideals of global unity, though it also contained elements of authoritarianism and exclusionary policies.
This historical context of supranational ambitions and speculative proposals underscores the enduring appeal—and controversy—of projects aimed at reimagining national borders and, consequently, global governance. But what’s the through-line between these concepts and contemporary fears about Trump’s expansionist rhetoric? To help fill in that gap, we can turn to Alex Jones’s 2009 documentary Reflections and Warnings: An Interview with Aaron Russo, in which Trump’s recent rhetoric has prompted a revival of interest.
This extensive interview with filmmaker Aaron Russo, whose insights and allegations bring a more personal and provocative perspective to the conversation, sheds light on the intersection of political agendas, economic policies, and conspiracy theories like the North American Union. Here, Russo describes how his personal friendship with an alleged Nicholas Rockefeller—someone whom the much admired James Corbett estimates may have at least claimed to be a member of the infamous dynasty of American oligarchs—shaped his supposedly controversial views about 9/11, the Federal Reserve, and world government conspiracies. He asserts that the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were orchestrated by elements within the U.S. government and banking system to justify the subsequent War on Terror to create a perpetual state of fear and control, just as he claims his Rockefeller friend had predicted.
But for these conspirators’ goals, the North American Union only serves as a stepping-stone, and Russo outlines (at ~23:51–25:28) just how far beyond the mere expansion of U.S. borders they aim:
So the ultimate goal that these people have in mind is the goal to create a one-world government run by the banking industry, run by the bankers, and they’re doing it in sections. The European currency, the Euro, and the European Constitution is one part of it. Now they’re trying to do it in America with the North American Union, right? And they wanna create a new currency called the Amero […] the whole agenda is to create a one-world government where everybody has an RFID chip implanted in them. All money is to be in those chips, right? There’ll be no more cash. And this is given me straight from Rockefeller himself, this is what they wanna accomplish […] Instead of having cash, any time you have money in your in your in your chip, yhey can take out whatever they wanna take out whenever they want to. If they say you owe this much money in taxes, they just deduct it out of your chip digitally. Total control […] [if] you’re protesting what they’re doing, they can just turn off your chip and you have nothing. You can’t buy food, you can’t do anything. It’s total control of the people […] And so they want a one-world government controlled by them, everybody being chipped, all your money in those chips, and they control the chips and they control and you become a slave, you become a serf to these people. That’s their goal, that’s their intention.
Russo goes on to emphasize (at ~55:51) the need to shut down the Federal Reserve system—something we here at Radio Free Pizza can surely get behind, though our proposed solution in the preceding link of a nationalized central bank likely runs at odds with Russo’s own thinking, unless we add provisions to prevent surveillance and control over personal monies—with the filmmaker explaining that the central bank has created a debt-based economy and controlling both major political parties to destroy American sovereignty. Accordingly, he calls (at ~2:05:43) for an uprising against the banking elite and advocates (at ~2:20:50) for restoring the constitutional republic, suggesting (at ~2:21:17) the mobilization of everyday Americans to stand against government tyranny. Throughout the interview, he stresses the need for public awareness and action to reclaim individual freedoms and dismantle the current system of high finance controlling national politics and international policy.
Trump’s expansionist rhetoric and the consequent re-emergence of the North American Union conspiracy theory reflects a complex intersection of historical precedent, political intrigue, and the enduring appeal of grand geopolitical visions. While the theory seems to lack substantive evidence and remains firmly in the realm of speculation, its persistent popularity underscores deep-seated anxieties about globalization, sovereignty, and the concentration of power.
Historical examples like the Technocracy movement, Gomberg’s post-war map, and Russo’s controversial claims provide a vivid tapestry of ideas that resonate with both legitimate concerns and outlandish fears. They remind us that proposals to redraw borders, consolidate power, or reshape governance have long captured the imagination—though often fraught with authoritarian undertones and practical obstacles.
Ultimately, whether Trump’s rhetoric signifies a genuine shift in U.S. foreign policy or merely serves as political theater, it invites us to examine broader questions about national identity, global cooperation, and the balance between security and liberty. As history has shown, such ambitions, whether real or imagined, demand vigilant scrutiny to ensure that bold visions do not erode the principles of representative governance and national self-determination. In the end, perhaps the real challenge lies in distinguishing between pragmatic strategies to control mineral deposits or shipping lanes (of which not just Greenland has both, but Panama too) and the emotional allure of grand conspiracies—though of course we can’t say why these should be mutually exclusive.