SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us congress
'This Is War Profiteering': Fertilizer Giants See Fortunes Boom as Trump Militarism, Tariffs Hurt Farmers
"While a few agrochemical giants shamelessly reap bumper profits, farmers are watching their livelihoods wither on the vine," said one Greenpeace campaigner.
May 13, 2026
Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday underscored how the US-Israeli war on Iran and Trump administration trade policies are hurting farmers and consumers while Big Ag profits from fast-rising fertilizer and food prices.
President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice has resulted in the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which around 30% of the world's fertilizer and 20% of its oil previously passed. In addition to increasing the risk of a global food crisis, the strait's closure has sent fuel and fertilizer prices soaring, with US farm diesel costing nearly 50% more than it did on the war's eve in February and nitrogen fertilizer rising by a similar percentage.
Meanwhile, Trump's erratic tariff war has further squeezed farmers and consumers. Tariffs have increased short-term prices, market volatility, and farmer costs while temporarily reducing import flows.
Vermont farmers "are footing the bill for Trump's reckless war in Iran," Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said Wednesday on social media. "Fuel and fertilizer costs are surging right amid planting season, hitting family farms that are already stretched thin. This needs to end."
Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) said on X that "food prices are skyrocketing because 70% of farmers can't afford fertilizer, due to Trump's reckless Iran War," adding that "perhaps Trump should help them out by lending some, given that he's full of crap."
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) noted Tuesday on Bluesky that "Minnesota’s farmers are dealing with tariffs, high fertilizer costs, expensive feed, and exorbitant fuel prices," while Trump is "planning to lay off dozens" of US Department of Agriculture workers "who help farmers protect their land and water."
The lawmakers' posts followed Tuesday's US Senate Agriculture Committee hearing on fertilizer market challenges, during which members of the Republican majority spoke vaguely of "trade disputes" and the "recent conflict in the Middle East" without naming names.
When it was her turn to speak, Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) noted the "direct link" between the soaring price of nitrogen fertilizer components and Trump's actions.
"In the months since the president started the war, with no consultation or authorization from Congress... urea has spiked more than 40%, the cost of diesel has hit near record highs in Midwest states," she said. "Now, why? Well, nearly half of the global urea goes through the Strait of Hormuz. Thirty percent of ammonia goes through the Strait of Hormuz."
Farmers are facing fertilizer prices that are through the roof because of the across-the-board tariffs, market consolidation, and uncertainties stemming from a war in Iran that was started with no consultation or authorization from Congress.
[image or embed]
— Senator Amy Klobuchar (@klobuchar.senate.gov) May 12, 2026 at 5:51 PM
"Yet, even before the war, farmers were walloped by the presence of across-the-board tariffs," Klobuchar continued. "An analysis by North Dakota State University... found that [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] tariffs added nearly $1 billion in costs to critical inputs like fertilizer, seed, machinery, and chemicals from February through October of last year."
"Acting now will ultimately help stabilize prices and give farmers the certainty they need," the senator added. "But it is going to have to be a combination of things: ending the tariffs, or reducing them, or making them much more targeted; ending this war; finding a way to resolve it, so the Strait of Hormuz is open again; and then going at this long-term systemic problem about the lack of competition in this area."
According to the advocacy group Farm Action, a handful of companies—primarily Nutrien, Mosaic, and CF Industries—dominate the North American fertilizer market, operating as an oligopoly that controls over 90% of nitrogen and potash production. Saskatchewan-based Nutrien, the world's leading potash producer, last week reported net first-quarter earnings of $139 million, up from $19 million one year ago.
"Fertilizer companies raise their prices because they can, and that's the market power that they have," Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) said during Tuesday's hearing.
Noting record gains reaped amid the tumult of Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine, Smith said that during 2021-22, "the nine largest fertilizer companies made an estimated $84 billion in profits."
"In 2022, major fertilizer companies saw profits increase somewhere between 100 and 200%," she continued. "Their input costs did not go up by that much... How much do you think the profits of the average farmer in South Dakota [went] up during that time period?"
Pointing to new reports of robust fertilizer industry profits, South Dakota Corn Farmers president Trent Kubik replied, "during these last 75 days, a lot of money was being made, but it wasn't by farmers."
Addressing the question of "what can we do to change the behavior of companies that are in a position where they can charge such high prices and get such exorbitant profits," Smith suggested considering a "windfall profits tax" to "make the market more fair, particularly for folks that are doing the work."
The Trump administration's plan to counter high fertilizer prices includes reopening the Biden-era Fertilizer Production Expansion Program, which provides grants and financing to build or expand domestic manufacturing capacity. Some critics have slammed the program as a form of corporate welfare.
The administration is also considering further expanding a multibillion-dollar bailout program, which critics say has mainly benefited large-scale, export-oriented commodity farms.
Responding to recent reports of strong profits for nitrogen fertilizer producers, Greenpeace Aotearoa (New Zealand) Big Ag project lead Amanda Larsson said Tuesday that “the illegal US-Israeli attack on Iran has sent global fertilizer prices soaring, and while a few agrochemical giants shamelessly reap bumper profits, farmers are watching their livelihoods wither on the vine."
"This is war profiteering facilitated by a broken, fossil fuel-dependent food system—with farmers and consumers paying the price," she continued.
“Synthetic nitrogen fertilizer causes water and climate pollution, while propping up a system of industrial over-production, particularly to produce monoculture feed crops for livestock," Larsson said. "We are sacrificing our rivers, our climate, and our financial security to prop up a system that serves billionaires, not communities."
“We cannot buy food security on a volatile global chemical market," she added. "The only path to true food sovereignty and resilience is through a transition to ecological farming. By moving away from synthetic fertilizers and toward diverse, nature-based practices, we can break the cycle of chemical dependence, protect our water, and ensure that the price of food is no longer dictated by the whims of war and corporate greed.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Redistricting Wars Prove History Doesn't Move in Just One Direction
Abandoning the solemn commitment America made to guarantee equal representation regardless of race is a grave threat to our system of governance. And the fact that the Supreme Court has done it to enable partisan gamesmanship offends that legacy.
May 13, 2026
The late 19th century was a dismal time in American politics. Corruption ran rampant. Congress was governed by staunch partisan loyalties and nail-biting majorities. And redistricting, instead of being confined to after the census every 10 years, was a tool of manipulation and partisan hardball. “From 1872 to 1896,” a political scientist reports, “at least one state redrew its congressional districts each year.”
Of course, that era was marred by another phenomenon—one too familiar to us today. It saw a swift rollback in voting rights and representation for the newly freed Black population of the South. In 1875, after the Civil War and the adoption of the 15th Amendment, seven Black men served in the House, and one sat as a senator. Terrorism, political cowardice, and racial backlash ended Reconstruction. By 1902, Congress was once again all white.
That status quo largely held until the civil rights movement of the mid-20th century, culminating in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The law ushered in the multiracial democracy we have taken for granted.
Nearly two weeks ago, the Supreme Court supermajority finished its project of demolishing the law. The ruling in Louisiana v. Callais convulsed American politics. Since then, we have seen an ugly frenzy in Southern states, a brutal redrawing of district lines that could, as scholar Rick Hasen put it, “bleach the halls of Congress, state legislatures, and local bodies like city councils.”
Congress must act. It can ban partisan gerrymandering nationwide, in red states and blue states alike.
Since the ruling, Louisiana has gone back to the drawing board to erase one of its majority-Black districts, even though early voting had already begun in the primary election that was set for May 16. Preparations are underway in Alabama and Mississippi for redrawing their maps. Just last week, Florida passed a new map, which had been in motion in anticipation of a favorable Supreme Court ruling. In some states, as in Tennessee, Black voters could be left without any effective congressional representation.
Blue states, too, are scrambling to redraw maps to help their party, though their success remains to be seen. In a surprise ruling last week, a closely divided Virginia Supreme Court struck down the just-passed constitutional amendment that gave the legislature the power to redraw the state’s congressional map, which would have likely handed several seats to Democrats.
While gerrymandering remains unpopular among voters at large, among the activists whose votes tend to control primaries, party loyalty rules. In Indiana, for instance, several legislative challengers backed by President Donald Trump defeated most of the incumbents who refused to get on board with the Republican redistricting agenda.
Pundits who tally up the wins for each party may be missing the bigger point: Soon, state congressional delegations will begin to resemble the Electoral College—all red or all blue. Recall that Trump won 1 in every 3 votes cast in Massachusetts, while Kamala Harris won a similar share of the votes cast in Tennessee, yet both states will have monolithic party delegations.
What can be done?
The raw power grabs on display may be just the kind of thing to rouse voters to anger. Yes, midterm elections in November will turn on issues such as affordability and the war in Iran. But when people feel something being wrested away from them, they can fight back.
And Congress must act. It can ban partisan gerrymandering nationwide, in red states and blue states alike.
It should enact legislation to make clear that American citizens can sue to protect their right to vote when it is infringed. Legislation should give voters of color a meaningful opportunity to prove intentional discrimination, and it should make sure that judges apply strict scrutiny to laws that impinge on the franchise.
And Congress should recognize the danger of an unelected Supreme Court—highly ideological, appointed for life—taking a hammer to laws that uphold political equality. This past month reinforces the need for court reform, including an 18-year term limit for justices.
Want more proof of the political role the court has assumed? Alabama took, as Brennan Center senior fellow Joyce Vance put it, a “nanosecond” to rush to the justices for permission to gain the “benefit” of Callais, even though primary voting starts in a week. The justices quickly agreed, even though the state’s map had already been found intentionally racially discriminatory by a lower court, allowing the state to eliminate one of the two districts represented by Black lawmakers. This contravenes years of the high court’s assurances that rules should not change too close to an election. Calling balls and strikes? The fix seems to be in.
Alabama, of course, is where Selma is located. Its history is more complex than you might imagine. Here’s what I wrote in my book The Fight to Vote:
Alabama previously had one of the most democratically robust systems in the country, including universal male suffrage and a bar against gerrymandering. But its new Jim Crow constitution gave county registrars great discretion in barring African American voters. White men could vote without anyone attesting to their good character, but Black men required the recommendation of a white voter. As a result Black voting rates fell from 180,000 to fewer than 3,000 between 1900 and 1903.
History emphatically does not move only in one direction.
Abandoning the solemn commitment America made to guarantee equal representation regardless of race is a grave threat to our system of governance. And the fact that the Supreme Court has done it to enable partisan gamesmanship offends that legacy.
The Brennan Center was named after Justice William J. Brennan Jr., a leading force in the brief but celebrated period when the court actually moved to ensure equality in our election system. He authored the opinion in Baker v. Carr, which established the willingness of the court to enforce what would become the “one person, one vote” rule. He also wrote Thornburg v. Gingles, which set national standards so that voters of color could go to court and seek remedies when officials unfairly limited their opportunity to elect candidates to Congress. That American achievement is what the Supreme Court has so casually tossed away. It may be a long time before the court will once again play a positive role in our democracy.
The stakes are high. Brennan put it well: “The Constitution will endure as a vital charter of human liberty as long as there are those with the courage to defend it, the vision to interpret it, and the fidelity to live by it.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Farm Bill’s 'Save Our Bacon' Provision Attacks State's Rights and Voters
Democrats and Republicans who claim to respect states’ rights should reject this federal power grab and defend the voters, farmers, and small businesses who have already moved forward.
May 13, 2026
Congress has a choice to make: Protect democracy and states’ rights, or hand a blank check to Big Pork lobbyists who refuse to accept that voters, family farmers, and the marketplace have already moved on.
Buried in the House-passed Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (Farm Bill) is a provision known as the “Save Our Bacon Act,” a slickly named attempt to wipe out state farm animal welfare laws like California’s Proposition 12. The House passed the farm bill on April 30 by a vote of 224-200, after the Rules Committee blocked a bipartisan amendment that had the votes to pass on the floor that would have stripped the Save Our Bacon language from the bill.
Now the fight moves to the Senate. And every Democrat and Republican who claims to respect states’ rights should be on notice: This provision is not about saving bacon. It is about overriding voters, punishing family farmers who adapted, and using federal power to erase state laws that powerful corporate interests dislike.
Proposition 12 was passed by nearly 63% of California voters in 2018. At its core, the law set a basic standard for certain animal products sold in California, including pork: A mother pig should have enough space to stand up, turn around, and extend her limbs. That is not radical. It is the bare minimum.
The message should be simple: Respect the voters, respect the farmers, respect the courts, and keep this attack on states’ rights out of the Farm Bill.
The pork lobby sued anyway, arguing that California had no right to decide what products could be sold within its own borders. They took that argument all the way to the US Supreme Court—and lost, even before a conservative court. In 2023, the court upheld Prop 12.
That should have been the end of it.
Instead, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and its allies went to Congress and asked lawmakers to do what the courts would not: nullify the will of voters through federal legislation. The Farm Bill is their latest vehicle to pass the Save Our Bacon Act.
Supporters dress this up as a defense of interstate commerce. But let’s be honest about what it really is: a federal override of state decision-making.
That should alarm conservatives who believe Washington should not dictate every policy choice from the top down. It should alarm progressives who believe voters have the right to pass laws protecting animals, consumers, workers, and communities. And it should alarm anyone who thinks Congress should be solving actual problems in the farm bill—not sneaking in special favors for a trade group that lost in court, lost at the ballot box, and is now trying to win through backroom legislative maneuvering.
The irony is that Prop 12 has not caused the collapse its opponents predicted. Pork has remained on California shelves. Major producers have adapted. Nearly all major food companies now offer Prop 12-compliant pork. Many farmers invested in compliant systems and rely on the market that Prop 12 created.
In fact, some of the loudest claims against Prop 12 have aged terribly. The NPPC’s own vice president testified before Congress while describing himself as a fourth-generation hog farmer who produces Prop 12-compliant pork—then argued against the very law he already follows. That contradiction says everything. Compliance is possible. The industry knows it. The marketplace has shown it.
The people who stand to lose from the Save Our Bacon Act are not the multinational corporations that have already adjusted. They are the family farmers who spent money to meet higher standards, the small and mid-sized producers who gained access to premium markets, and the voters whose laws would be wiped away because a lobby did not like the outcome.
This is why opposition to the provision has not fallen neatly along party lines. A bipartisan group led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, sought to remove the language from the Farm Bill, joined by Republicans and Democrats including Reps. Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), David Valadao (R-Calif.), Nancy Mace (R-SC), Mike Lawler, (R-NY), and Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ), according to industry reporting.
That bipartisan resistance matters. It shows this is not a left-versus-right issue. It is a question of whether Congress will respect state authority or gut it when a powerful industry lobby complains loudly enough.
For Democrats, the choice should be easy. Prop 12 reflects humane treatment, consumer transparency, and democratic accountability. It was passed by voters and upheld by the courts. A farm bill should not become a vehicle for rolling back animal welfare progress and silencing state-level reform.
For Republicans, the choice should be just as easy—at least for those who mean what they say about states’ rights. If California voters cannot decide that pork sold in California must meet basic animal welfare and food safety standards, then what exactly does “states’ rights” mean? Does it only apply when a state passes laws that corporate lobbyists like?
The Save Our Bacon Act is also a warning shot far beyond animal welfare. If Congress can erase state laws protecting farm animals because they affect interstate commerce, what stops future Congresses from targeting state laws on food safety, environmental protection, public health, labeling, or consumer standards? Opponents have warned that this kind of language could threaten hundreds of state agricultural laws and undermine state and local authority well beyond Prop 12.
That is why lawmakers should strip this language from any final farm bill.
The farm bill should support farmers, strengthen food systems, expand nutrition access, invest in conservation, and build resilience. It should not be hijacked by a narrow industry faction trying to relitigate a Supreme Court loss. And it certainly should not punish the farmers and companies that did the right thing by adapting to higher standards.
Animal welfare progress is real. Across the food system, companies, producers, and consumers are moving toward more humane practices. Cage-free eggs now make up a major and growing share of the market. In pork production, many supply chains have reduced or eliminated gestation stalls. The trend is clear: Extreme confinement is becoming harder to defend and easier to replace.
The progress did not happen by accident. It happened because voters demanded it, farmers built it, companies responded to it, and advocates kept pushing. The Save Our Bacon Act would turn back the clock—not because the system failed, but because it succeeded.
Congress should not reward obstruction. It should not let Big Pork use the farm bill to override voters. And it should not allow a fake “states’ rights” argument to become a federal power grab against the states that actually exercised their rights.
Democrats and Republicans who genuinely believe in democracy, federalism, and fair markets should stand together and reject the Farm Bill if it includes the Save Our Bacon Act language.
The message should be simple: Respect the voters, respect the farmers, respect the courts, and keep this attack on states’ rights out of the Farm Bill. Call your US senators today and tell them to oppose Big Pork’s attack on democracy and oppose any Farm Bill version with the "Save Our Bacon" language included.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular