USDA's September forecast puts total crop receipts $14.6 billion above 2025 levels, yet Rep. Brad Finstad says fertilizer and fuel costs keep squeezing farm margins despite the gain.

In southern Minnesota, cash prices run roughly $1 per bushel higher for corn and $2 per bushel higher for soybeans than a year ago. Finstad, a fourth-generation farmer representing Minnesota's 1st Congressional District on the House Agriculture Committee, credits part of the improvement to the Trump administration chipping away at a $50 billion agricultural trade deficit.

The claim warrants scrutiny. Receipt forecasts are projections, not harvested results, and USDA's farm income figures shift with each reporting window. Price gains, meanwhile, arrive alongside input bills that have climbed faster in recent years.

What drives the input-cost fix?

Finstad's first prescription is domestic production of fertilizer and less reliance on foreign suppliers. He points to investments already underway at Minnesota farmer-owned cooperatives CHS and Central Farm Service.

He wants Congress and the administration to keep backing:

• Domestic fertilizer production
• Diversified suppliers
• Greater price transparency

No specific dollar figures accompany the cooperative investments, and the piece does not detail which federal programs would carry the effort forward.

How concentrated are U.S. farm exports?

Finstad frames market diversification as the second priority. In 2025, the United States exported $171 billion in agricultural products — but 56 percent went to just five markets: Mexico, Canada, the European Union, Japan and South Korea. Exports to China fell 66 percent to $8.4 billion.

"This concentration leaves farmers vulnerable when demand from a major customer shifts or trade disruptions occur, and the effects can quickly ripple through commodity markets," Finstad wrote.

Soybean exports to China have rebounded this year, he acknowledges, while calling China the nation's "greatest near-peer adversary." He names Southeast Asia and Africa as growth regions where rising populations and incomes could build new demand for American commodities. The essay does not specify which trade tools or agreements would open those markets.

What about biosecurity spending?

New World screwworm, highly pathogenic avian influenza and African Swine Fever anchor the third argument: animal disease outbreaks can upend livestock markets faster than trade policy can.

Finstad says the Working Families Tax Cuts delivered "historic investments" in USDA's foreign animal disease preparedness, prevention and response programs. He provides no dollar amount for that spending, and he calls for more research and stronger disease monitoring at home and abroad to stop threats before they reach U.S. borders.

Does research spending pay?

Finstad's final point rests on a return-on-investment claim: according to USDA, every $1 invested in agricultural research generates $20 in economic benefits.

Yet public research funding has declined in real dollars over the past two decades, he writes, while China now outspends the United States. Private industry, by contrast, is investing at historic levels in drought- and disease-tolerant seed, precision agriculture and digital crop-monitoring tools.

His ask is that taxpayer-funded research at land-grant universities and public laboratories complement private investment and stay tied to producer-driven problems. He does not name a funding target or authorizing bill.

The bottom line

Finstad's four-part agenda — cheaper inputs, wider export markets, stronger biosecurity and pragmatic research — reads as a framework rather than a legislative package. Whether the $14.6 billion receipt forecast holds through harvest, and whether any of the four priorities advance in Congress, will define what farm country actually banks this season.