President Trump Invokes Defense Production Act to Secure Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate Supply

Highlights

• President Trump signed an Executive Order on February 18, 2026, invoking the Defense Production Act to safeguard domestic production of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides, citing risks to military readiness and food security from supply disruptions.
• The Order addresses strategic vulnerabilities in concentrated supply chains, with China dominating global production of both elemental phosphorus and glyphosate, while the U.S. relies on only one domestic phosphorus producer, facing demand that exceeds output.
• The move raises significant public health and environmental concerns, including glyphosate's controversial cancer classification by IARC, toxic byproducts from phosphorus production, and potential policy lock-in that could slow the transition to alternative agricultural technologies.

---

On February 18, 2026, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order (opens in a new tab) invoking the Defense Production Act (DPA) to safeguard domestic production of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides. The Order delegates authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to prioritize contracts and allocate materials to ensure continued supply, citing risks to military readiness and food security if production is disrupted. With only one domestic producer and demand exceeding output, the Administration frames the move as essential to national defense and agricultural resilience.

What are these Substances

Elemental phosphorus is the pure, highly reactive form of the chemical element phosphorus (P), produced industrially from phosphate rock and used as a foundational building block in defense systems (smoke and illumination devices), semiconductors, flame retardants, specialty chemicals, and certain lithium-ion battery chemistries. It exists in different forms, including highly reactive white phosphorus and more stable red phosphorus. Glyphosate, by contrast, is a synthetic herbicide derived through phosphorus-based chemistry and is one of the most widely used weed killers in global agriculture. It works by blocking a key plant enzyme needed for growth and is commonly used in crops such as corn and soybeans, particularly in systems designed for glyphosate-tolerant seeds. While elemental phosphorus is primarily an upstream industrial input, glyphosate is a downstream agricultural product; both are strategically important, but glyphosate remains scientifically and legally controversial due to ongoing debates about potential cancer and environmental risks.

Where are these Substances Made

Elemental phosphorus production today is concentrated in a handful of countries, with China dominating global output, followed by Kazakhstan, Vietnam, and smaller volumes in the United States and Russia; China, in particular, controls a substantial share of upstream phosphate processing capacity, making it a pivotal supplier in downstream chemical and defense-related applications. Glyphosate-based herbicides are even more heavily concentrated, with China accounting for the majority of global technical-grade glyphosate manufacturing and exports, supplying formulators worldwide; significant production also occurs in the United States (historically led by Monsanto, now part of Bayer), as well as facilities in Brazil, India, and parts of Europe, but global pricing and supply dynamics remain largely influenced by Chinese production levels and export policies.

The Stated Rationale: Defense and Food Security

The White House argues that elemental phosphorus is a dual-use strategic material. It supports smoke and illumination devices, semiconductor components used in radar and sensors, optoelectronics, and lithium-ion battery chemistries relevant to weapons systems. Phosphorus is also a precursor for glyphosate-based herbicides—the most widely used weed-control tools in U.S. agriculture.

The Administration’s core claim: supply disruption—whether from foreign dependency, market failure, or plant shutdown—could weaken the defense industrial base and destabilize food production. The Executive Order aligns with earlier DPA actions targeting minerals, maritime capacity, nuclear fuel management, and pharmaceutical reserves.

From a national security perspective, the rationale is coherent. Concentrated supply chains create vulnerabilities. The U.S. has increasingly used industrial policy tools to mitigate strategic choke points.

Public Health and Environmental Concerns

However, the Order also raises significant public health and environmental questions.

Glyphosate-based herbicides remain controversial. While U.S. regulators such as the EPA have maintained that glyphosate is not likely carcinogenic when used as directed, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015. Litigation, occupational exposure concerns, and ecological impact debates persist. Expanding production without parallel safeguards may intensify exposure risks for agricultural workers and surrounding communities.

Elemental phosphorus production also carries environmental hazards. Historically, phosphorus facilities have been associated with toxic byproducts, groundwater contamination, and worker safety risks. Prioritizing output under DPA authorities could accelerate production timelines, potentially increasing pressure on environmental oversight.

A further concern is policy lock-in. By invoking national security authority to stabilize glyphosate supply, the federal government may inadvertently slow the transition toward alternative weed-control technologies or regenerative agricultural models that reduce chemical dependency.

Balancing Industrial Policy with Health Protections

This Executive Order reflects a broader trend: expanding the definition of “national defense” to include food systems and industrial chemistry. Whether the move strengthens resilience without amplifying health and environmental risks will depend on how aggressively safety standards, environmental compliance, and worker protections are enforced alongside expanded production.

Industrial security and public health need not be mutually exclusive—but under emergency-style authorities, the balance requires vigilance.