Economist Michael Hudson feels that the United States has for decades used food as a tool of foreign policy, making other nations dependent on American grain exports to secure political leverage. Speaking on Dialogue Works, a Youtube channel, hosted by Nima R Alkhorshid, Hudson described this as the “weaponization of food,” and argued that India’s refusal to yield on farm trade reflects its effort to protect sovereignty, farmers’ interests, and food security. Hudson was joined by another economist Richard D Wolff, who also is the co-founder, of Democracy at Work, a non-profit media collective.
This discussion highlighted a broader point: food and agriculture are no longer only about meeting domestic needs but have become part of global strategy. While India focuses on its own priorities, the United States has tried to use farm exports and trade pressure to push New Delhi toward its political agenda.
Michael Hudson on Sovereignty and Agricultural Independence
Michael Hudson framed the debate in terms of sovereignty and the protection of India’s agricultural sector. He highlighted Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s repeated statements asserting India’s right to conduct trade independently and safeguard domestic economic priorities. The newspapers have said that President Trump attempted to reach Prime Minister Narendra Modi on several occasions, but Modi did not take the calls. His refusal was seen as a clear signal that India would not entertain demands that ran counter to its stance on sovereignty, farmers’ interests, and food security.
Hudson traced the historical use of agriculture as a tool of US foreign policy, noting that since 1945, Washington has often sought to make other nations dependent on American grain exports.
He cited examples ranging from World Bank loan conditions to US backed regimes in Latin America, where food policy was used to prevent land reform and control domestic agricultural production. In this context, India’s refusal to yield to US pressure is a defense against attempts to weaponize food and force dependency on foreign agricultural systems.
Hudson stressed that US demands for India to open its markets for American agricultural products would have required New Delhi to sacrifice the interests of its farmers, destabilize rural livelihoods, and undermine domestic food security. By asserting sovereignty, India is ensuring that decisions about trade and agriculture remain in the hands of its own government rather than external powers.
Technology, Trade, and Agricultural Independence
While the primary focus was on agriculture, the discussion also touched on technology and its relationship to economic sovereignty. Hudson and Wolff noted that technological collaborations, particularly in artificial intelligence and software development, are increasingly linked to trade and geopolitical alliances. India’s decision to maintain independence in agriculture parallels its strategic moves in technology and trade, ensuring that critical sectors remain under national control and are not leveraged as tools by external powers through tariff based bargaining.
The Broader Geopolitical Implications
The Dialogue Works discussion highlighted the complex interplay of trade, agriculture, and geopolitics. At the core, India’s resistance represents an effort to protect its farmers, maintain food security, and assert national autonomy in the face of external pressures. The debate underscores that food and agriculture are not merely economic sectors, they are instruments of national strategy, and India’s stance illustrates the importance of safeguarding these critical resources in an era of global great power competition.
Also read: India-US Tariffs: Oil, Dairy and the Nobel Ego Battle
As global hunger and climate pressures intensify, Hudson’s warning resonates beyond India. The idea that food can be turned into an instrument of coercion has implications for how developing nations manage their grain reserves, diversify trade partners, and negotiate within multilateral forums such as the WTO and BRICS. The discussion suggests that agricultural independence is not only about farmer welfare but also about insulating nations from strategic vulnerabilities in an era of shifting global power.