By Natasha Tofil, ASU sustainable food systems graduate student
Over the course of three days, nearly 200 students from 30 colleges and universities convened in Tempe, Arizona with the privilege of participating in the second annual, and first in-person Model USDA. The energy in the room reflected something more than a typical academic conference. It felt purposeful. Model USDA represents an alternative approach to civic education, one that moves beyond theory and into the lived mechanics of public policy development.
At its core, Model USDA is a structured, role-based simulation designed to immerse students in the realities of policymaking. Participants are not passive observers; they step directly into the roles of agency leaders, tribal representatives, advocacy organizations, and public or private stakeholders. Through this process, students gain exposure to the often-unseen dynamics of agency engagement, intergovernmental coordination, stakeholder negotiation, and public communication. The experience is designed to replicate the tensions, tradeoffs, and collaborative demands that define real-world governance.
Preparation begins well before arrival. Each participant is assigned a scenario grounded in a contemporary policy issue relevant to USDA agencies and affiliated stakeholders. Along with their scenario, students receive a specific role and detailed briefing materials outlining responsibilities, participation expectations, and preparatory assignments, including open-forum speeches. The structure is deliberate. Each scenario centers on a complex policy question that requires negotiation, communication, and cross-sector collaboration. There are no easy answers. Instead, the exercise compels students to grapple with competing priorities while attempting to move a process forward.
I was assigned the role of journalist in Scenario F: Fighting fire with fire. The policy issue was framed around protests by a fictional advocacy group, “Save Our Friends,” which raised concerns about the impact of prescribed burns on wildlife populations. The working group’s charge was to develop a public education campaign articulating the benefits of prescribed burning as part of broader forest management strategies implemented by the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior.
The stakeholder composition reflected the complexity of the issue itself. Representatives from Indigenous tribes, including the Pueblo, Hoopa Valley, and Karuk, participated alongside advocacy organizations such as the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife. Private land interests were represented by groups like the Western Landowners Alliance, while policy-oriented organizations such as The Center for Law and Social Policy contributed additional perspectives. The diversity of voices mirrored the real-world policy landscape, where ecological science, cultural knowledge, economic interests, and public perception intersect, and often collide.
Serving as the journalist provided a unique vantage point. Unlike other participants, I was not advocating for a specific policy outcome. Instead, my responsibility was to observe the process itself: to document how arguments were framed, how priorities were elevated or sidelined, and how consensus-building unfolded in real time. The role required careful listening, critical analysis, and an ability to capture nuance without inserting personal bias. It also reinforced how central communication is to policymaking. Policy does not move forward in a vacuum; it is shaped as much by narrative and public understanding as by technical merit.
By the end of the first day, the session had already surfaced both substantive and procedural challenges. Participants heard testimony from the Chief of the Forest Service outlining the rationale for prescribed burning as a wildfire mitigation strategy. The group explored the benefits of controlled burns alongside alternative land management approaches, including sustainable grazing. Scientists raised concerns about potential impacts on native chaparral ecosystems and emphasized the importance of understanding long-term ecological tradeoffs.
The discussion also expanded to include reactions to presidential comments favoring logging as a primary forest management strategy over prescribed burns. This added a political dimension to what had begun as a technical and ecological debate. As stakeholders pressed to ensure their concerns were acknowledged, the session began to drift from its stated objective. Competing priorities surfaced more forcefully, and the challenge of maintaining focus became apparent.
At that moment, the Secretary of Agriculture restated the session’s purpose with clarity: “Prescribed burning is an effective method of wildfire prevention and eradication of pest infestation and disease in trees. Trees are not only suffering from wildfires, but from other issues that can be solved or mitigated through controlled burns.”
Her charge was not simply to defend prescribed burning as a policy tool, but to create space for dialogue and shared understanding. The goal was the development of a credible public education campaign grounded in responsible land stewardship. The reminder underscored an essential lesson: effective policymaking requires disciplined facilitation and an intentional return to shared objectives when conversations begin to fragment.
One of the most impactful elements of the scenario was the inclusion of Indigenous representatives. Their participation reframed the discussion in important ways. Prescribed burning was not presented as a novel intervention, but as a longstanding land management practice rooted in traditional ecological knowledge. The presence of tribal voices grounded the conversation in historical context and reminded participants that contemporary policy debates often overlook generations of lived expertise. Their contributions deepened the discussion and challenged assumptions about ownership of environmental knowledge.
Ultimately, the scenario examined more than the technical merits and risks of prescribed burning. It illuminated the broader challenges inherent in advancing forest management policy: public perception, stakeholder trust, political influence, and the tension between ecological science and economic interest. It required participants to consider not only what policy is sound, but how it is communicated, justified, and implemented in a way that garners public support. In the end, the Scenario F group was able to put together a policy action plan that the Secretary felt comfortable adopting.
From a personal perspective, Model USDA fills a critical gap between academic theory and applied governance. Traditional coursework can explain the policymaking process; Model USDA allows students to experience it. Under the guidance of experienced professionals and faculty, participants are given the opportunity to test ideas, engage constructively across ideological differences, and confront the realities of consensus-building. The simulation exposes the messiness of governance, the moments when discussions derail, when stakeholders feel unheard, and when leadership must re-anchor a process.
The experience was both rigorous and instructive. It demonstrated that civic participation is not abstract; it is procedural, relational, and often imperfect. It requires preparation, patience, and an ability to navigate competing truths. Model USDA does more than teach about policy, it cultivates the habits of mind necessary to participate in it responsibly.
In that sense, it represents a fresh and meaningful approach to civics education, one that is difficult to replicate within the confines of a traditional classroom, yet essential for preparing the next generation of public leaders.
This blog is part of a series written by Arizona State University (ASU) graduate students who role-played as journalists in Model USDA 2026, a multi-day simulation hosted by the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems at ASU.