U.S. fertilizer imports are responding to President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs adopted this summer, with buyers pivoting to lower-tariff sources, increasing costs for customers, a new analysis finds.
The latest installment of North Dakota State University’s Agricultural Trade Monitor shows that after the Trump administration imposed a 10% baseline tariff on almost all U.S. imports in April, fertilizer imports from covered countries fell sharply, while those left uncovered rose.
Between April and September, imports of potash from countries hit with the tariffs fell 31%. Imports from Canada, which saw products covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement excluded from new levies, fell modestly by 12%. But imports from Russia, which were not subject to the initial 10% baseline tariff, jumped, the report finds.
Similarly, urea supply chains shifted towards Russia after the baseline tariff went into effect and away from partners like Qatar and Saudi Arabia covered by the new duty. Nitrogen fertilizer imports from countries not covered by the tariffs – including Russia – rose 44% from the previous year, while imports from countries hit by the April 2 duties fell by 12%, and imports from Canada fell 12%.
Trump and President Joe Biden before him have repeatedly framed their tariffs on China as part of an effort to create more diversified and resilient U.S. supply chains. But the NDSU authors warn that by driving fertilizer supply chains towards Russia, the U.S. may be weakening, not strengthening, its fertilizer supply.
“This shift suggests stabilizing short-term supply and reduced cost pressures, but it also signals a deeper U.S. dependence on a geopolitically riskier supplier,” the authors write.
The tariffs and other economic drags are also reducing overall demand for certain imported ag inputs. Last month, the National Corn Growers Association polled more than 1,000 farmers on what changes they were considering for their operations in 2026. Almost 60% said they would postpone equipment purchases, while 38% they would reduce fertilizer application – by far the top two answers.
Cut through the clutter! We deliver the news you need to stay informed about farm, food and rural issues. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse here.
These business decisions are already showing up in import data, the NDSU analysis shows. Demand for phosphate fertilizers has fallen, even from countries exempt from Trump’s tariffs. Imports are down 33% from the same period in 2024 from countries not covered by the April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs. From countries hit by the duties, imports are down by 47%.
A similar story is playing out in tractor and ag machinery imports. Imports from both Canada and Mexico – which enjoy the USMCA carveout – are down 16% and 18%, respectively; meanwhile, imports from countries subject to the emergency tariffs unveiled in April are down 24% in the case of tractors, and 10% for other ag machinery.
Only seed and pesticide demand have held up in the face of the tariffs – a reflection of “relatively inelastic demand and existing supply commitments,” the authors note.
The tariffs are also already contributing to higher prices for U.S. producers, the study shows. While global factors are driving prices higher, U.S. buyers are also paying a tariff premium on top of already high prices.
By late summer, U.S. farmers in the northern plains were paying $34 per metric ton more for diammonium phosphate than their Canadian counterparts across the border – which share seasonal and global conditions but are subject to very different trade policy regimes. Monoammonium phosphate prices were $32 per metric ton higher.
Before Trump’s April tariffs, U.S. and Canadian prices for both had moved in tandem, closely following global trends, the authors note.
An $11 per metric ton premium has emerged for urea, according to the study. U.S. potash prices have remained stable, a reflection of the USMCA tariff carveout and the dominance of Canada’s exports in U.S. markets, the authors say.
“[W]hile IEEPA tariffs did not cause the fertilizer price run-up, they have specifically worsened the situation for U.S. farmers,” the authors write. “In effect, U.S. farmers face a double burden: elevated global prices affecting producers worldwide, plus tariff-induced premiums that other international competitors do not face.”
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
