Why It Matters
Farmers facing elevated input costs sit have raised concerns over whether the United States should keep collecting tariffs that offset foreign subsidies on phosphate fertilizer imports, according to a new Congressional Research Service report.
The analysis describes a June 29 emergency proclamation authorizing suspension of countervailing duties (CVDs) on phosphate fertilizer from Morocco that have been in effect since 2021. The proclamation by the Trump administration cited Section 318(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and applied to Moroccan, not Russian, fertilizer.
U.S. prices for certain phosphate fertilizers rose after the escalation of the U.S. conflict with Iran in February to their highest levels since September 2025. Some agricultural groups favor removing the duties to lower prices, citing costs to farmers, while certain domestic manufacturers support retaining them to address foreign government support for overseas producers.
Some lawmakers have urged revocation of the duties or supported suspension legislation, while other lawmakers in prior years backed the duties as a response to unfair trade practices and as a matter of food security.
The Big Picture
From 2016 to 2025, U.S. imports of phosphate fertilizers averaged nearly 3 million metric tons annually, with Morocco, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Israel as the main foreign suppliers. Trade data compiled by CRS, downloaded August 17, show Morocco and Russia accounted on average for about 74 percent of imports from 2016 to 2019.
After the United States imposed CVDs on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia in 2021, imports from those two sources declined while imports from Saudi Arabia, Israel, and other trading partners increased.
The duties originated in a June 2020 petition by The Mosaic Company, described as the largest U.S. producer, which alleged countervailable subsidies and injury to domestic industry. The Commerce Department found countervailable subsidies, the U.S. International Trade Commission found reasonable indication of material injury by reason of the imports, and duties followed in 2021.
In early 2026, some agricultural stakeholders urged suspension or revocation, and Commerce later issued instructions for duty-free entry and had granted requests to several importers as of September. Legislative examples cited include S. 4418 and H.R. 8583 to suspend the duties. By law, injury determinations do not weigh effects on downstream users such as farmers, so any requirement to consider farm-level costs would need a statutory change.
The Bottom Line
The rarely invoked emergency provision had gone unused after 1946 until a 2022 suspension for certain solar cells and panels, which the Court of International Trade later held did not qualify as other supplies for use in emergency relief work, with appeals pending before the Federal Circuit. A future ruling on that language could shape how a court would view fertilizer if an interested party challenges the current suspension.
Congress could clarify, narrow, or expand eligible items, or wait for a judicial determination before acting. Fast-track reversal tools face hurdles, as no implementing rule appears to have been submitted for review under the Congressional Review Act, following the earlier H.J.Res. 39 veto fight, and as coverage of the emergency under the National Emergencies Act remains uncertain and subject to parliamentary resolution.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article