Should America Give Our Surplus Grain Away Every Year?
This week, the nation’s Food for Peace Program—and all other United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programs—found themselves on the chopping block.
Before we go any further, let’s get on the same page.
American agriculture is national security.
Second, let’s share some quick history.
On July 10, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act, allowing the president to ship surplus commodities to “friendly” nations on concessional or grant terms. For the first time, America could give away its excess grain to partner nations.
In 1961, President John F. Kennedy expanded the program, rebranded it Food for Peace, and established USAID to oversee it.
If you believe that those with plenty should help those with nothing, Food for Peace was a success. It became the largest single food donor to the United Nations World Food Programme. In 2022 alone, “American farmers provided more than 4 billion pounds of U.S.-grown grains, soybeans, lentils, rice, and other commodity staples” through the program.
It’s also good business for American farmers. Now, Republican lawmakers from agricultural states are fighting to save it.
Every government program should face scrutiny. But this one is worth saving.
This isn’t about charity. That was a benefit of the program. But Food for Peace wasn’t only about poverty. It was about national security.
Global hunger breeds instability.
Instability creates openings for adversaries.
Adversary influence threatens the American people.
So the real question isn’t whether America should shut down an agency that some see as a global social program driven by ideology.
We need to step back and look at the bigger picture. Forget charity for a second. Let’s take the question at face value.
Should America give our surplus grain away every year?
Food Security is National Security
A country that cannot feed itself becomes a victim of coercion and geopolitical manipulation.
By the late 1930s, Japan relied heavily on imports for most of its food and nearly all of its oil, rubber, and metals. Japan’s domestic agriculture couldn’t keep up with its growing population, and they started seizing food from their neighbors. Between 1936 and 1938, 95% of Japan’s imported rice came from Korea or Taiwan (Johnston, B. F. (1953). Japanese Food Management in World War II. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 45–49, 166–170, 202–204).
Food shortages forced Japan to expand. As its military campaign in China escalated, the US and other Western powers imposed economic sanctions.
Japan’s food problem became catastrophic during World War II. Imports were disrupted, military priorities came first, and by 1940, Japan rationed food. Malnutrition, disease, and starvation followed. Beriberi, a disease caused by vitamin B1 deficiency, spiked.
Hunger was a key factor in Japan’s surrender. By 1945, US naval blockades and bombing campaigns had destroyed Japan’s food supply chains. America targeted Japan’s food vulnerability as a center of gravity in our strategic approach. Even if the war had continued, famine would have crippled Japan’s ability to fight. After the war, food shortages persisted into the US occupation.
This suffering changed Japan’s long-term policies. The country fortified domestic agriculture and imposed high tariffs on imported grains like rice, wheat, and barley. Even today, Japan strictly controls grain imports, avoiding overdependence on foreign suppliers, including the US.
The lesson is clear. Food security is national security. It is not just about feeding people. It is sovereignty, stability, and strength.
Japan wasn’t the only nation that learned this the hard way.
Let’s talk about another fallen American adversary: the Soviet Union.
Khrushchev and Yeltsin Go to the Grocery Store!
On Monday, September 21, 1959, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev went to the grocery store. Not in Moscow. Not in Leningrad. In San Francisco, California.
He walked through aisles of produce, deli meats, and frozen dinners—foods unimaginable in the Soviet Union. The next day, in Des Moines, Iowa, he ate his first American hot dog and joked:
“We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.”
But in 1959, Khrushchev never publicly admitted shock at America’s grocery stores. That would come later.
By the 1980s, Soviet agriculture had collapsed under central planning. Shortages and rationing became commonplace.
Then, in 1989, just two months before the Berlin Wall fell, Boris Yeltsin visited a grocery store in Houston, Texas. Unlike Khrushchev, Yeltsin couldn’t hide his reaction. The Houston Chronicle described how he roamed the aisles of Randall’s, shaking his head in amazement.
Yeltsin had grown up hungry. The Soviet State had taken away his family’s farm, leaving them dependent on a system that couldn’t feed its own people.
That grocery store visit shattered any belief in communism. Two years later, as Russian President, Yeltsin ordered Russian state land to be divided into private family farms.
From the defeat of Japan to the fall of the Soviet Union, our lesson is that:
American Agriculture is National Security
Food isn’t just about feeding people. It is economic strength, national security, and global influence.
Japanese agriculture couldn’t keep up with American agriculture.
Soviet Russian agriculture couldn’t keep up with American agriculture.
And today, we still need agricultural abundance.
Agricultural Abundance
America’s agricultural dominance isn’t an accident. It’s a deliberate national choice. It’s built on policy, infrastructure, and continuous innovation. Both necessity and profit drive this system.
On February 13, President Trump reinforced this priority, signing an Executive Order establishing the Make America Healthy Again Commission. One of its key tasks is to “Work with farmers to ensure that U.S. food is healthy, abundant, and affordable.”
The focus on abundance is critical. Food security isn’t just about today. It’s long-term stability.
A nation that produces only ‘just enough’ food is one disaster away from crisis. That’s why the national agriculture system cannot be designed for maximum profit alone. There has to be excess. The system must be resilient.
Food production isn’t instant. Crops and livestock take time, land, and weather cooperation. For example, with the recent egg shortages, if producers could ramp up supply overnight to chase profits, they would. But you can’t create egg layers out of thin air.
This is why food security requires intentional overproduction.
Without surplus, a drought, flood, or disease outbreak can cripple the food supply. Unlike other industries, agriculture can’t instantly scale production to meet demand. Efficiency alone isn’t the right measure. Resilience is the right measure for agriculture. A strong system produces more than necessary because shortages are more dangerous than excess.
The resulting surplus shields against uncertainty. It stabilizes the food supply, prevents reliance on foreign imports, and protects against market disruptions. On the world stage, a nation that produces more food than it consumes has leverage. Countries that depend on imports are vulnerable to foreign control. When America has a surplus, adversaries can’t weaponize food against us.
In this way, surplus grain isn’t waste. Surplus grain is a strategic asset.
There’s another key factor at play.
Agriculture is Unpredictable
Farmers don’t control the weather, bird flu outbreaks, or global trade policies. One in three years is a bad year for agriculture. A system that only produces ‘just enough’ in a good year guarantees shortages in a bad year.
The only way to secure the nation’s food supply is to grow more than needed every year.
When one region suffers from drought, another’s surplus offsets the losses. When unpredictable events disrupt production, a buffer ensures food remains affordable and accessible. Surplus keeps Americans fed, prices stable, and the country resilient.
Because our agricultural system must be designed this way, we always have more grain than we need. Even though we need surplus every year, we also need to manage it wisely. Uncontrolled surplus drives prices down, hurting American farmers. If we don’t address the grain surplus, we risk losing the ability to grow it.
We also need to think about American influence on the world stage.
Agricultural Surplus and Influence
Without order, scarcity leads to conflict. Nations compete for limited resources. The strong dominate, and the weak suffer. In a world where food shortages create instability, countries that control the global food supply exert power over those that do not.
This is why agricultural abundance is more than an economic advantage. It is a tool of influence. Nations with surplus can stabilize their allies, undermine their adversaries, and dictate the terms of trade. Japan and the Soviet Union failed because they could not secure their own food supply. America’s agricultural surplus allowed it to feed its friends and keep its enemies dependent.
But surplus alone is not enough. It must be managed strategically. An uncontrolled surplus collapses domestic markets, driving prices so low that farmers go bankrupt. A controlled surplus allows America to direct influence where it matters.
Food is both a commodity and a diplomatic asset. Throughout history, America has used surplus grain as a foundation for long-term partnerships. Food aid programs have strengthened alliances, opened trade routes, and cemented US influence in key regions. The Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe and ensured that newly rebuilt economies were tied to American markets. The Food for Peace program fed the hungry while reinforcing US influence in developing nations. It aligned economic structures with American interests rather than Soviet alternatives.
Partnerships built on food endure. A nation that depends on America for food security is far less likely to align with adversaries. A reliable food supplier is a stabilizing force in times of crisis. Strategic agricultural surplus is not just about helping others. Our agricultural surplus secures America’s position in the world.
We need to extend our influence and maintain strong partnerships to achieve our global security goals. And to do that, we need surplus grain.
Which brings us to our question. Should America give our surplus grain away every year?
Should America Give Our Surplus Grain Away Every Year?
American agriculture is national security.
Food is not just about feeding people. It is economic strength, national security, and global influence. On the world stage, America has interests, and we have partners. Reliability and trustworthiness are both virtues and strategic advantages.
Surplus grain is not waste. It is a strategic asset that we need to use wisely. The question is not whether we should give grain away. The real question is how we should use it to advance American interests.
If you believe that those with plenty, like America, have a duty to help those with nothing, then Food for Peace was a success. But food aid is not charity. It is good business for American farmers and a powerful tool of influence.
Food aid programs do more than just feed people. They strengthen alliances. They open trade routes. They cement US influence. They align global economic structures with American interests rather than those of our adversaries.
We might choose not to send our surplus grain through the United Nations World Food Programme. We might prefer more direct control over where we exert influence.
But we must choose to use American agriculture to reinforce partnerships, secure influence, and protect our global standing.
May God bless the United States of America.
Share this post