U.S. Policy Must Adjust to the Global Fertilizer Crisis
Published: Friday, May 1, 2026
President Trump invested substantial political capital in an effort to confront a conflict that has shaped U.S.-Iran relations for nearly half a century, seeking to support the Iranian people who have endured decades of repression and the loss of countless lives under Ayatollah Ali Khomeini's rule. His administration also prevented the escalation of nuclear tensions in the region—moves that averted a broader global crisis. President Trump's bold actions will be appreciated in the history books. But even actions taken with the intention of reducing conflict and promoting stability can unleash far reaching consequences.
The geopolitical landscape that follows such decisions is rarely straightforward, and the ripple effects—strategic, humanitarian and diplomatic—continue to unfold in ways that demand close attention from policymakers and the public.
At the same time, the world is entering one of the most precarious periods for fertilizer supply in modern history, and the U.S. is not shielded from the fallout. Nitrogen fertilizer—arguably the single most essential input for global food production—is now under severe pressure. Without decisive action, American farmers and consumers will pay the price.
For decades, global nitrogen production has been heavily concentrated in the Middle East and Russia. That concentration has now become a glaring vulnerability. Conflict in the regions has damaged or destroyed major production facilities and instability has slowed or disrupted movement through the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world's most critical shipping corridors for fertilizer and energy products. Analysts warn that some of these plants in both Russia and the Middle East may take two to four years to rebuild and return to pre conflict output levels. In fertilizer markets, that is not a delay—it is a crisis. Further worsening the issue is Brussel's pervasive focus to sanction Russian nitrogen which will force closure of the Russian plants, resulting in a loss of 18% of the world's nitrogen supply, a global humanitarian disaster created by the Europeans.
The consequences are already visible. Global supply has tightened, nitrogen prices have surged, shipping routes are strained and buyers are competing for fewer tons on the international market. For the U.S.—where agriculture depends on nitrogen to maintain yields—this is not a distant geopolitical problem. It is a direct threat to food security and economic stability.
Yet U.S. trade policy continues to operate as if global fertilizer supplies were abundant. The U.S. currently imposes countervailing duties on phosphorus fertilizers from numerous foreign suppliers, with rates that can exceed 45% depending on the product and producer. These duties were originally justified as a response to unfair trade practices. But in today's environment of global scarcity, they function as a self imposed tax on American agriculture and U.S. consumers.
Farmers are already paying more for fertilizer than at any point in recent memory. When duties raise the cost of imported nitrogen, those increases ripple through the entire food system. Higher fertilizer prices mean higher production costs. Higher production costs mean higher food prices for American families. At a time when consumers are already struggling with inflation, maintaining these duties is economically counterproductive.
U.S. Trade Secretary Greer supports these duties and argues that they protect domestic fertilizer producers. But the global market tells a different story. With international fertilizer prices now trading above U.S. domestic levels, American producers have every incentive to sell into higher priced foreign markets. Even with duties in place, domestic supply is not guaranteed to stay at home. The U.S. risks a scenario where farmers face elevated prices while domestic fertilizer producers pursue better margins abroad for years into the future.
Meanwhile, the Middle Eastern production losses will not be resolved quickly. Rebuilding ammonia and urea plants is not like repairing a warehouse. These are complex, capital intensive facilities requiring specialized equipment, engineering expertise and stable conditions. Industry experts warn that returning to 2025 production levels could take two to four years, assuming no further disruptions. That timeline alone should force a reassessment of U.S. trade policy.
If the U.S. wants to reduce its vulnerability, expanding domestic nitrogen and phosphorus production would seem like the obvious solution. But here, too, policy is out of sync with reality. Building a new nitrogen plant in the U.S. can require seven years or more just to secure regulatory approval, followed by another five years of construction. That means a decade or more before a single ton of new nitrogen reaches the market. In a world where supply shocks can unfold in weeks, a 10-year permitting timeline is not a strategy—it is a liability.
This is not just an agricultural issue. It is a national security issue. Fertilizer is the foundation of modern food production. Without reliable access to fertilizer, crop yields fall, food prices rise and global stability erodes. The U.S. cannot afford to treat fertilizer policy as an afterthought.
The path forward requires both immediate and long term action. In the short term, the U.S. should suspend countervailing duties on all fertilizers from foreign suppliers. This would not eliminate all price pressures, but it would provide meaningful relief to farmers and help stabilize food costs for consumers. It would also signal that U.S. policy is responsive to global conditions rather than tied to outdated assumptions.
In the long term, the U.S. must modernize its permitting and regulatory framework to allow new fertilizer production to come online in a reasonable timeframe. No one is suggesting that environmental safeguards be abandoned, but a decade long approval process is incompatible with the realities of global supply chains and the urgency of food security.
The fertilizer crisis is not hypothetical. It is here, it is global and it is worsening. The U.S. has the capacity to protect its farmers, its consumers and its food system—but only if policymakers recognize the scale of the challenge and act accordingly. The world cannot wait 10 years for new plants, and American agriculture cannot wait two to four years for damaged facilities abroad to rebuild. The time for action is now.
Return to Top of Page