If the foreign competition really is subsidized, then a possible state policy would be to tax the incoming products to raise its price to what it would be unsubsidized.
However I have to agree with Jason, free trade is part of freedom, and it is the only decent way to raise the standard of living elsewhere (foreign aid sure is not the answer). Maybe our state could raise hell in Washington, telling them we want to opt out of sending them tax dollars for foreign aid money which just harms our farmers.
The other answer to this is for the state's economy to diversify and to become more healthy. That will mean farmers have access to other income. What's that old joke, "I need a second income to be able to afford to farm?"
Finally, farmers and ranchers need to diversify themselves. Start big game and varmint hunting clubs on them, put a little RV park out on them, look at different crops, and so forth (we can help that by removing restrictions on the way they use their land). I'm a city person (sad to say) but I'd love to have a ranch where the owner let me drag up a trailer to spend as much time as I could out there. I'd enjoy helping on the place to pay for the rent (a tax-free proposition, too!)
Of course, the FSP (at least in an interior state, and maybe in any candidate state) may simply not have a "position" on foreign trade. Why should we? We can't affect it and we don't need to antagonize the locals...