Another really great point to consider by Laura Aboli. I’m honored she tagged me in this.
Everyone seems to be losing their mind over Trump’s phosphorus and glyphosate executive order, so let’s look at this logically…
President Trump has invoked the Defense Production Act to secure domestic production of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides.
At first glance, that feels like a betrayal of everything MAHA stands for. RFK Jr. has spoken clearly about its health risks and we all dream of chemical-free agriculture, but this was not a health endorsement, it was a national security decision.
Elemental phosphorus is not just used in agriculture, it is essential for defense manufacturing, munitions, industrial processes and fertilizers. The United States imports millions of kilograms every year. If that supply is disrupted by hostile nations, trade wars or global instability, both military readiness and food production are hit at the same time.
Food security is national security.
Right now, whether we like it or not, American agriculture is built on chemical infrastructure. Glyphosate is embedded in that system. If it vanished overnight, crop yields would fall sharply, livestock feed chains would destabilize and food prices would spike dramatically.
If the US relies on foreign adversaries for critical materials like phosphorus, there is no leverage, no sovereignty and no safe path to transition. Securing domestic production does not mean endorsing long-term chemical dependency, it means ensuring stability while alternatives are developed and scaled responsibly.
You cannot dismantle a 40-year agricultural infrastructure in one executive order without causing shockwaves. That does not mean the current system is healthy, it means you do not detonate it before you have built the alternative.
Invoking the Defense Production Act allows the government to prioritize domestic production and reduce vulnerability to external pressure in an increasingly unstable world.
This may not feel ideal, but if we want regenerative agriculture, soil restoration and a reduction in chemical dependency, those shifts must be phased in strategically. They cannot be forced through sudden scarcity.
There is a difference between entrenching a system and securing it long enough to reform it.
I think we must trust the sequence; stability, sovereignty and then transformation.
Before anyone doubts the seriousness of what is going on, please look up the documentary The Future of Food from 2004. I think you can still get it on Amazon. Shows the hold big corporations have over our foods for the sake of a buck. It will open your eyes,