In tight Kansas Senate race, struggling farmers are split

Kansas farmers face the same financial squeeze but draw different political conclusions. Rising costs, drought, low commodity prices, and weaker exports have created anger toward Republican leaders, including Roger Marshall. Yet many farmers still identify with Republicans or fear Democrats would harm agriculture.

The Preisser family blames Marshall for failing to deliver a new Farm Bill and for not protecting farmers from tariffs, the Iran war, and immigration raids that reduced harvest labor. Larry Preisser plans to vote for Democrat Adam Hamilton, while Jeff may not vote and Mandi Sieren trusts neither party. Nearby farmer Mick Roush plans to support Marshall because he is from farm country and considers Hamilton too liberal.

The divide reflects both economic frustration and political loyalty. A Farm Journal survey found that Republicans remain more trusted on farm issues, but 73% of farmers said elected officials understand their realities poorly or not at all. With neither party trusted by many voters, the race remains unusually competitive.

The Preisser family’s 6,500-acre farm faced a severe financial shock in 2026. Operating it cost $737,375 more than the previous year, while revenue dropped by $325,000. Together, those changes produced a $1,062,375 deterioration compared with the prior year’s position.

The largest cost increases were $514,625 more for fertilizer and $187,000 more for diesel. Parts added another $10,000, which the family linked to steel tariffs. At the same time, drought cut crop yields by 20%, commodity prices stayed low, and trade wars reduced agricultural exports.

The numbers help explain the family’s political frustration and uncertainty about survival. Jeff Preisser said the farm might not make it through next year and that no collateral or money remained. The farm grows corn, cotton, soybeans, and wheat, but producing crops does not guarantee enough revenue to cover sharply higher costs.

The Farm Bill is a large package of federal agricultural legislation. It supports farmers through programs tied to crop insurance, prices, and rural development. These tools matter because farming income can change sharply with weather, markets, and production costs. The article presents the bill as a central part of the safety net for rural communities.

Crop insurance helps protect farm income when harvests fail or yields fall. Price-related support can help farmers manage weak commodity markets. Rural-development provisions support the broader places where farms operate. Together, these measures are intended to reduce the financial damage caused by risks farmers cannot fully control.

The political problem is that Congress has not passed a new Farm Bill since 2018, and the previous bill officially expired last month. Larry Preisser said Republicans had promised action but delivered nothing after two years. That disappointment is pushing him toward Hamilton and deepening farmers’ doubts about leadership.

When input costs rise, yields fall, and crop prices stay low, a farm’s earnings can collapse. Farmers must pay for fuel, fertilizer, parts, labor, and other operating needs before knowing what their harvest will bring. Lower production reduces the amount available to sell, while weak prices reduce payment for each unit sold.

The Preisser farm illustrates the mechanism. Drought cut yields by 20%, and low commodity prices reduced the value of what remained. Meanwhile, fertilizer costs rose $514,625 and diesel costs rose $187,000. Revenue fell $325,000 as expenses increased $737,375, leaving the family with little financial room.

The consequence can be debt, exhausted collateral, reduced planting, or failure to continue farming. Jeff Preisser said there was no more collateral or money and questioned whether the farm would survive through next year. Kansas lost 700 farms from 2024 to 2025, showing that the pressure extends beyond one family.

The article describes several pressures hitting farmers simultaneously. Drought reduced the Preisser farm’s yields by 20%, meaning less grain and other crops were available to sell. Trade wars shrank agricultural exports, while low commodity prices further reduced the money farmers received for their production.

Tariffs affected the farm through higher parts costs. The Preisser family reported spending $10,000 more on parts and linked that increase to steel tariffs. They also reported $514,625 more for fertilizer and $187,000 more for diesel, costs they said had jumped during the Iran war. These pressures raised expenses while production and sales weakened.

The result is a double squeeze: farms spend more to produce less and receive less income when they sell. Some farmers view the Iran war’s effects as temporary or justified, while others blame political decisions for their hardship. The family called temporary fuel relief a Band-Aid rather than a lasting solution.

The Preisser family wants durable protection rather than a short-lived reduction in diesel costs. Long-term support matters because farms face repeated risks from drought, weak commodity prices, expensive inputs, and disrupted markets. A single payment may ease one bill without restoring a farm’s underlying financial stability.

The article identifies the Farm Bill as a major vehicle for support. A renewed bill could provide crop insurance, price-related assistance, and rural-development programs. Crop insurance could help when drought reduces yields. Price support could matter when markets weaken. Rural-development funding could strengthen the communities and services surrounding farms. These measures address different parts of the risk.

The article does not specify a full alternative package beyond those Farm Bill functions. It reports that President Trump announced an $8 billion temporary fuel-relief program. The Preisser family called it a Band-Aid, suggesting farmers want predictable, lasting policies rather than emergency relief alone.

A farm earns revenue by selling crops such as corn, cotton, soybeans, or wheat. Its profit is what remains after paying the costs of producing and selling them. Those costs include inputs such as fertilizer and diesel, along with parts and other operating expenses. The article focuses on how quickly those costs can change.

A farmer may produce a large amount but still lose money if prices are low. Drought can also reduce yields, leaving less to sell. The Preisser family reported $737,375 in additional operating costs and $325,000 less revenue. Fertilizer and diesel were the largest added expenses, while drought and low commodity prices reduced income.

This gap can threaten a farm’s survival even when fields remain productive. Jeff Preisser said his family had no more collateral or money and was unsure about the next year. The example shows why output alone does not determine success: prices, yields, and production costs must work together.