President Trump used the Defense Production Act to secure domestic manufacturing of glyphosate-based herbicides and elemental phosphorus, arguing that relying on foreign suppliers—especially China—threatens America’s food supply. This piece explains why that move matters for farmers, the risks of offshore dependence, and how maintaining domestic production supports yields, jobs, and long-term food security.
Washington’s decision to classify glyphosate and elemental phosphorus as essential recognizes a simple fact: supply chains matter when food is at stake. For decades, the United States has let critical inputs slip into foreign hands, and that vulnerability shows up in empty shelves or delayed seasons when geopolitics heat up. Bringing production back home is about control and predictability, not ideology.
The USDA flagged that roughly half of crop protection chemicals come from China, which should make any cautious leader uneasy. Dependence on a single foreign supplier creates leverage that can be used for political pressure or economic disruption. If a conflict or trade spat shuts off shipments, farmers face real harm and consumers pay with higher prices or shortages.
Invoking the Defense Production Act sends a clear signal: the federal government will step in when private markets and foreign suppliers threaten national security or the food supply. That’s the same logic used for chips and critical medicines and it makes sense here too. It keeps manufacturing know-how, quality control and regulatory oversight anchored in the United States where standards and accountability matter.
As a seventh-generation Indiana farmer, I’ve watched how crop protection tools changed our operation over generations. We adopted glyphosate soon after it became available, and the difference is measurable: higher yields, simpler weed control, and more efficient planting. That consistency is what lets farms scale and feed families, both here and abroad.
Glyphosate remains the most widely used herbicide in row crops like corn, soybeans, cotton and canola because it works across millions of acres. Farmers rely on predictable performance to plan rotations, manage costs and protect soil health. When a staple like that becomes scarce, the whole system—seed decisions, planting windows, fertilizer use—gets thrown off and the fallout is costly.
There’s an environmental side people miss when the focus goes straight to labels and lawsuits. Glyphosate enabled widespread adoption of no-till farming, which reduces soil erosion and keeps nutrients in the ground where they belong. That practice has increased wildlife habitat and preserved millions of tons of topsoil, outcomes that matter as much as yield numbers do.
Domestic production also supports American jobs in plants, laboratories and logistics networks. It keeps regulatory oversight close and ensures manufacturers operate under U.S. safety and environmental rules. Relying on offshore factories doesn’t just export manufacturing; it exports oversight and the benefits that come with it.
Imagine a sudden flare-up in the South China Sea or a blockade affecting shipments tied to Taiwan and China. Access to crop protection products could be cut off quickly, and our food chain would be vulnerable. As I witnessed when serving as the U.N. ambassador to the Food Agencies, all societies are only three meals from chaos, and it is inexcusable to see that ever happen again in America.
Securing domestic supplies of glyphosate and elemental phosphorus is practical, not theatrical. It protects operational certainty for farmers, preserves environmental gains from modern practices, and reduces strategic leverage by foreign suppliers. This approach treats food security like what it is: a national priority that deserves more than passive reliance on distant producers.
Keeping production stateside does not mean ignoring safety or scrutiny. It means applying American standards to manufacturing and stewardship while preserving the tools farmers need. That balance is what ensures both productive fields and accountable industry, and it is a common-sense step toward a more resilient food system.
