Why the U.S. Should Not Trade with Belarus, and What It Costs American Farmers

What Happened

According to reporting from the Washington Post, the Trump administration is pursuing potash purchases from Belarus, a country that allowed Russian forces to stage and launch attacks on Ukraine during Moscow's 2022 invasion. The move comes amid trade tensions with Canada, a major fertilizer supplier to American agriculture.

Potash, a potassium compound essential to fertilizer, is a commodity American farms depend on. Belarus is a significant producer. But Belarus is also controlled by Alexander Lukashenko, whose government has been deeply complicit in Russia's war. The country provided staging areas, logistics, and airspace for Russian forces to attack Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities.

What It Means for You

If you grow food, eat food, or buy food, this matters. Fertilizer prices ripple directly into what you pay at the grocery store. The average American household spends roughly 9-10% of income on food, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey. Fertilizer costs are a major input cost for farmers.

Here's the choice being made: trade with a country whose government actively helped Russia invade a neighbor, versus working out disagreements with Canada, a NATO ally and long-standing trade partner. The administration appears to be willing to make geopolitical compromises to lower fertilizer costs or avoid tariff escalation with Canada. That sounds like it solves a problem. It actually creates several.

First: it signals to authoritarian governments that if they help America's adversaries, we'll still do business with them if the price is right. That weakens every commitment we've made to Ukraine and every partner watching whether we mean what we say about standing against Russian aggression.

Second: it destabilizes the trade relationships American agriculture actually depends on. Canada is not Belarus. We have a 70-year history with Canada, shared institutions, courts we both trust, and dispute mechanisms that work. A farmer betting their operation on Canadian fertilizer imports knows they can count on that supply. Belarus? That relationship is contingent on a dictator's whims and his ties to Moscow.

The Bigger Picture

This isn't just about fertilizer. It's a test of what America's word means.

Our Ukraine and NATO policy is clear: Russia's 2022 invasion was an illegal war of aggression, and Ukraine's right to self-determination is not negotiable. Belarus materially enabled that invasion. In February 2022, Russian forces used Belarusian territory to stage attacks on Kyiv. Lukashenko's government provided airfields, roads, and air corridors. That wasn't neutral. That was complicity.

When we trade with Belarus anyway, when we signal that their role in enabling an illegal war doesn't change our business calculus, we're telling Ukraine, Poland, the Baltics, and every other country that might face Russian pressure: your security matters less than our commodity prices.

That has real costs. Not in abstract terms. In the decisions other governments make about whether to stand with us when it gets hard.

The trade policy angle is equally important. The Common Good Party's position on trade is this: trade generated $2.6 trillion in gains while destroying 2.4 million jobs in communities that never recovered. The fix is fair rules, not blanket tariffs. But fair rules require partners who play by the rules. You can't have fair trade with an authoritarian state run by a Russian proxy.

Canada isn't perfect, no trade partner is. But the answer to trade disagreements with Canada isn't to abandon Canada for Belarus. It's to negotiate. Use the dispute mechanisms we've built. Make your case. Find common ground with a partner whose government respects law, whose courts you can sue in, whose contracts you can enforce.

Where This Goes

This decision, if made, will have consequences beyond fertilizer prices. It will be read as a signal by every authoritarian government and every American ally watching. It will complicate our efforts to keep the coalition supporting Ukraine intact. And it will probably cost more in the long term, in unstable supply chains, in weakened alliances, in the credibility we've spent 80 years building, than any short-term savings on potash.

The Common Good Party would approach this differently. We'd negotiate with Canada in good faith. We'd invest in making American agriculture less dependent on any single supplier through research, infrastructure, and incentives for domestic production where feasible. And we would not trade with countries that help our adversaries wage illegal wars. Not because it's morally pure, but because it's strategically sound. Your word is worth something only if you keep it.