INVESTIGATION: Moroccan Fertilizer, the War in Iran, and Inflation — Why Trump Had to Back Down on His Own Tariffs

A figure that changes everything politically

The U.S. inflation rate of 4.2% in May 2026 is a figure that puts considerable political pressure on any administration. For Trump, who made the fight against inflation a central theme of his second term and who had benefited from voters’ frustration with inflation under the previous administration, this figure is particularly embarrassing. A rate of 4.2%, up from 2.4% in February 2026, represents a rapid and noticeable acceleration in the daily lives of American households.

Food prices are particularly politically sensitive: they are visible, consistent, and difficult for consumers to rationalize. A rise in the price of bread, meat, or vegetables is an immediate political signal that any government feels in its poll numbers. With the November 2026 midterm elections approaching, the decision to suspend tariffs on Moroccan phosphate is also an electoral one: to slow, even modestly, the rise in agricultural costs to prevent food inflation from becoming the dominant theme of the campaign.

Trump’s Tariffs and Their Contribution to Inflation

Economists and financial institutions have documented the contribution of Trump’s tariff policies to U.S. inflation. Analyses published by institutions such as the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Peterson Institute for International Economics show that import tariffs are passed on to consumer prices, even if this effect is sometimes partial and delayed. Against the backdrop of inflation already fueled by the energy crisis linked to the war in Iran, agricultural tariffs represent an aggravating factor that the suspension on Moroccan phosphate seeks to neutralize.

This implicit acknowledgment that tariffs contribute to the very inflation the administration claims to be fighting is one of the most striking paradoxes of Trumpist economic policy. The eight-month suspension is an admission that, on this specific point, the tariff policy was in direct contradiction to the anti-inflationary objective. It is a partial capitulation that official rhetoric seeks to present as a proactive strategic decision.

Here is the fundamental contradiction of Trumpist economics laid bare: imposing tariffs to protect American industry, then suspending them when they drive up inflation, which punishes the very voters the tariffs were supposed to help. It is a vicious cycle that economists predicted and that the facts confirm, once again.

A bilateral relationship with significant geopolitical dimensions

The decision to suspend tariffs on Moroccan phosphate is not solely economic—it also has a geopolitical dimension. Morocco is one of the Arab countries in the region closest to the United States and one of the signatories to the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations with Israel. Against the backdrop of the war in Iran and regional tensions in the Middle East, maintaining positive economic relations with Rabat is a diplomatic priority for Washington.

Morocco controls about 70% of the world’s known phosphate reserves, making it a key player in the geopolitics of fertilizers. For years, Beijing has sought to strengthen its economic influence in Africa, particularly in countries rich in strategic minerals such as Morocco. Imposing high tariffs that would permanently penalize Moroccan phosphate exports could push Rabat to diversify its trade partnerships toward China—a geostrategically counterproductive outcome for Washington.

The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals and Sino-American Competition

Phosphates, like other critical minerals, have become a battleground for direct geopolitical competition between the United States and China. Beijing has systematically sought to secure access to these resources in Africa, Latin America, and Central Asia. An America that treats Morocco as a trade rival rather than a strategic partner is ceding ground to China in a competition that extends far beyond the issue of agricultural tariffs.

This geostrategic dimension likely weighed heavily in Trump’s final decision. Suspending tariffs on Moroccan phosphate also sends a signal to Rabat: the United States views you as a partner, not as a trade target. In the broader competitive game with China, this type of signal holds far greater value than short-term tariff calculations.

China is playing chess while others are playing checkers. It has been investing in mining partnerships in Africa for twenty years, securing critical resources with impressive patience and strategic consistency. The United States, on the other hand, imposes tariffs and then suspends them depending on election cycles. That’s not a strategy—it’s short-sighted tactics.

Billions of dollars in refunds that companies are awaiting

Alongside the decision on Moroccan phosphate, another tariff issue was brewing in Washington: billions of dollars in tariff refunds owed to U.S. companies that had imported taxed inputs to manufacture products for export. These refunds—mandated by U.S. trade rules—had been significantly delayed, according to data published by sources close to the industry.

Senator Elizabeth Warren released data showing that hundreds of U.S. companies were awaiting tariff refunds that were slow to arrive, creating a significant cash flow problem for some small and medium-sized exporting businesses. This issue reveals that even the administrative machinery of tariff policies is under strain—customs agencies lack the staff to quickly process the volume of refund requests generated by the administration’s aggressive trade policy.

The Impact on U.S. Exporting Companies

For companies that have paid tariffs on imports used in their production and are awaiting refunds to maintain their competitiveness in export markets, the delay in refunds is a concrete cash flow problem. Published data suggest that these refunds, if processed normally, would provide quiet but significant support to the earnings of many U.S. companies in the coming quarters.

But the delay in refunds also means that companies have had to finance this shortfall themselves—often through additional credit—at a time when interest rates remain high. For large multinationals, this is an inconvenience. For exporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), it is a threat to their viability. The Trump administration has created a tariff system whose administrative side effects are just as detrimental as the tariffs themselves.

The ultimate paradox of Trump’s tariff policy: in seeking to protect American producers, he has created a system so administratively complex that the refunds to which American exporters are entitled do not arrive on time. It is protectionism that punishes itself. I have no more precise term to describe this situation.

A welcome but insufficient measure for the agricultural sector

U.S. agricultural organizations have greeted the suspension of tariffs on Moroccan phosphate with cautious relief. Groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation hailed the decision as recognition of the difficulties farmers are facing amid rising input costs. But this relief is immediately tempered by the measure’s limited duration—just 8 months—and by uncertainties about what will happen next.

The suspension is set to expire in March 2027, just after the November 2026 midterm elections. This timing is no coincidence: the measure lasts exactly long enough to get through this critical election cycle. Farmers planning for the 2027 growing season have no certainty about the tariff conditions under which they will operate. This persistent uncertainty is precisely what the agricultural community has been asking Washington to eliminate—without success.

U.S. Agriculture in an Environment of Rising Costs

Beyond tariffs, U.S. farmers face a combination of economic pressures: rising fertilizer costs (linked to the war in Iran), higher interest rates on agricultural loans, uncertainties in export markets due to trade disputes, and the effects of climate change on crop yields. The tariff suspension on Moroccan phosphate addresses only a small part of this set of challenges.

Data from the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) indicate that U.S. net farm income has been under increasing pressure since early 2026. The combination of rising input costs and relatively stagnant producer prices creates a squeeze that weighs particularly heavily on medium-sized farms—neither large enough to absorb shocks through economies of scale, nor small enough to capitalize on high-value-added niche markets.

I am not a farmer, and I do not claim to have an insider’s understanding of their reality. But when families who produce a nation’s food find themselves in such precarious financial situations, it is a sign that something is not working in the overall economic system. This is not a tariff issue—it is a systemic problem that tariffs alone can neither create nor resolve.

The Deeper Meaning of the June 29 Proclamation

The June 29, 2026, decision on Moroccan phosphate is symptomatic of a broader problem: a tariff policy designed to serve short-term political goals, yet confronted with structural economic realities it cannot simply ignore. Trump built his brand on the promise that tariffs would create American jobs and reduce imports. But American farmers cannot grow phosphate to replace Moroccan imports within the 8-month suspension period—nature does not follow election calendars.

What this investigation reveals is the underlying mechanics of tariff decisions in the real economy: tariffs have ripple effects throughout the economy that create winners and losers. When the losers are sufficiently visible and politically significant—Midwestern farmers in the run-up to the midterms—the administration is forced to adjust. This is standard economic policy, even when cloaked in nationalist rhetoric. And sometimes, normality eventually prevails.

The Lesson for the West and Its Allies

For the West’s trading partners and allies, the decision on Moroccan phosphate sends a twofold message. On the one hand, Trump’s tariff policy is not monolithic or immutable: it can be adjusted when economic and electoral pressure demands it. On the other hand, this flexibility remains fundamentally tactical rather than strategic—the suspension is temporary, with no guarantee of what comes next. For companies and governments seeking to plan their trade relationships with the United States for the long term, this structural unpredictability remains the main challenge.

For the West at large, the lesson is that trade cohesion among allies is a strategic asset that erratic tariff policies are gradually eroding. Against the backdrop of global competition with China and the need to support Ukraine, a commercially unpredictable United States is as much a liability as it is an asset. Striking a balance between legitimate national interests and reliability as an ally remains the unresolved challenge of contemporary U.S. trade policy.

I conclude this analysis with the conviction that tariff policies are neither good nor bad in and of themselves—they are tools that can serve legitimate objectives when used consistently and with a long-term vision. What is problematic about the Trumpist approach is the perpetual improvisation, the U-turns based on polls and electoral emergencies. This is not trade strategy—it is tactics disguised as doctrine.

Phosphate, Lithium, Rare Earths: The Silent Competition

The tariff suspension on Moroccan phosphate is part of a broader context: the global competition for critical minerals. Phosphate, like lithium, rare earths, and cobalt, has become a direct geostrategic issue between the major powers. China dominates the processing of many of these minerals, even when extraction takes place elsewhere. Morocco, with its considerable phosphate reserves, is a player that neither Washington nor Beijing can afford to ignore.

Initiatives such as the Minerals Security Partnership—an agreement between the United States and its allies to secure supply chains for strategic minerals—implicitly recognize that mineral diplomacy is just as important as military diplomacy. Imposing punitive tariffs on Moroccan phosphate exports runs directly counter to this strategy. The June 29 suspension is therefore also a correction of a strategic inconsistency.

What This Means for Global Food Security

Global food security depends directly on the availability and price of fertilizers. Disruptions in the supply chains for phosphate or nitrogen fertilizers lead to rising food prices that hit the most vulnerable populations in low- and middle-income countries first. The link between U.S. tariff policy on Moroccan phosphate and hunger in developing countries is not abstract—it is real and verifiable.

International organizations such as the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) have regularly warned of the risks that disruptions in fertilizer markets pose to global food security. A U.S. tariff policy that exacerbates these disruptions therefore has a real humanitarian impact, even if that impact is difficult to see from the corridors of the White House or Washington’s television studios.

Global food security is not an abstract topic reserved for UN conferences. It is a reality that affects billions of people and depends, among other things, on decisions such as the one made on June 29, 2026, regarding tariffs on Moroccan phosphate. When you manipulate fertilizer prices for electoral reasons, you’re playing with the food supply of populations that have no influence on U.S. elections. It’s a useful reminder that U.S. decisions have global consequences.

The Causal Chain from Moroccan Phosphate to U.S. Policy

The June 29, 2026, presidential proclamation on tariffs on Moroccan phosphate illustrates a causal chain that is rarely analyzed in all its complexity: a war in Iran disrupts energy markets, which drive up fertilizer costs, which burden American farmers, who put pressure on their elected officials, who pass that pressure on to the White House, which ultimately suspends the tariffs it had imposed. Every link in this chain is documented and verifiable. It is geopolitics intersecting with the everyday economy.

This interconnection also serves as a reminder that seemingly local political decisions—a war in the Middle East, a tariff on an African mineral—have repercussions in supermarkets and on farms thousands of kilometers away. The West cannot afford to ignore these causal chains or manage them with half-measures designed for electoral gain. What is needed is a coherent strategy on critical minerals, supply chains, and trade alliances that anticipates these crises rather than merely enduring them.

The proclamation of June 29, 2026, will not solve the structural problems of American agriculture, nor will it reduce inflation on its own. But it reveals that even the most rigid policies must ultimately come to terms with reality. For a columnist who believes in reality as the ultimate safeguard against extreme ideologies, this is almost reassuring.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist