By Colette Pressell, ASU sustainable food systems graduate student
During the last weekend of January, the Arizona State University campus served as the backdrop for a historic gathering of the nation’s future agricultural leaders. The Swette Center’s second-annual Model USDA simulation marked a major milestone as the program's first in-person event, bringing together nearly 200 students from 30 institutions across the nation. These participants, all part of the USDA NextGen program, arrived in Tempe to tackle a variety of scenarios including Scenario A, a complex simulation focused on the 2026 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs).
The task was far from simple: participants had to determine if and how environmental sustainability and ultra-processed foods (UPFs) should be integrated into federal nutrition advice. Because the DGAs influence everything from school lunch menus to military rations and SNAP benefits, the students weren’t just debating theory - they were practicing the art of high-stakes federal negotiation.
The weekend was a masterclass in the sheer scale of federal policymaking. To mirror real-world processes, the students were organized into a multi-faceted web of stakeholders. At the center was the DGA Workgroup, composed of student-led representatives from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP). Their mission was to draft a cohesive recommendation that was scientifically defensible and operationally realistic.
However, the Workgroup did not operate in a vacuum. The logistics of the weekend required constant movement and “hallway diplomacy.” Students representing industry groups, such as the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Sugar Association, met with other students roleplaying public health advocates from the American Heart Association and the Union of Concerned Scientists. These face-to-face interactions highlighted a critical logistical reality: in policymaking, information doesn’t just flow through formal reports, it moves through relationship-building and finding mutual interests between seemingly opposing sides.
One of the most significant learnings for the NextGen scholars was the concept of statutory authority. As they drafted their proposals, students had to consult with policymakers, including the acting USDA Chief of Staff and Senate Agriculture Committee Staff Directors, to ensure their ideas stayed within the legal limits of the 1990 Nutrition Monitoring Act.
This coordination highlighted the check and balances built into the federal government, where dedicated teams work constantly to ensure that guidelines remain within the limits of federal authority while balancing the needs of independent American farmers and rural communities. This forced a shift from idealism to pragmatism. Participants discovered that recommendation for minimally processed foods sounds excellent in a lab, but when evaluated by the School Nutrition Association or SNAP administrators, it presents massive logistical hurdles regarding kitchen infrastructure and grocery costs. By working through these constraints, students found that successful policy isn’t about one side winning, but about finding a version of the truth that all parties can live with to move the needle forward.
The in-person format allowed students to delve into geographic and logistical nuances that are often lost in digital spaces. During negotiations, a significant portion of the dialogue focused on how federal guidelines translate to diverse local realities. For instance, student delegates discussed the unique challenges of states like Hawaii, where high obesity rates are linked to the fact that most food is imported from the mainland. Participants explored the idea that relying heavily on mainland food imports - rather than local farming, fish, and aquaponics - creates a cycle of dependency. This prompted a realization that the DGAs should not just tell everyone what to eat, but should empower individual states to focus on what they can grow and source locally. This change in perspective shifted the simulation from a top-down federal mandate to a more responsive, localized approach to food security.
Beyond the technical logistics, the simulation provided a lesson in social equity. As the groups worked to create nonpartisan and inclusive language, they were reminded by the students representing the Office of Tribal Relations and the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights that broad labels can sometimes overlook specific community needs.
Participants grappled with the "Forgotten E" of food policy: equity. They learned that for the guidelines to be truly effective, they must be accessible to all. This required a deep dive into the importance of Indigenous food sovereignty, as students discussed how federal guidelines must respect and uplift traditional food systems rather than overshadowing them with a one-size-fits-all approach. By advocating for the inclusion of culturally relevant foods, participants highlighted that nutrition is not just about biological fuel, but about honoring the heritage and specific dietary traditions of diverse populations. This perspective carried over into critical discussion on ensuring DGAs do not become more restrictive regarding SNAP benefits. Students advocated for a focus on education rather than restriction, ensuring that as research evolves, low-income families are supported with information rather than limited in their choices. The takeaway was clear: a sustainable food system is only as strong as its most vulnerable link.
As the simulation drew to a close, the acting Secretaries of Agriculture and HHS reviewed and provisionally accepted the final recommendations. This provisional acceptance was a strategic milestone, while it meant kicking the can down the road on the most complex scientific definitions to allow for further study, it also ensured that the momentum for reform was not lost to total deadlock. The Secretaries noted that they currently lack specific health data for some determinations, transforming what could have been a definitive roadmap into a series of open-ended, scientific questions for future policymakers to answer.
At the end of the weekend, the participants left Tempe with more than just memories and ASU swag; they left with an understanding of the patience and persistence required to lead the USDA. They learned that while the wheels of government turn slowly, they are moved by the hands of those willing to sit at the table, listen to opposing views, and find a common path toward a healthier, more resilient America. As these NextGen scholars head back to their home states, they carry with them a firsthand understanding of federal policymaking, and the unlimited potential to turn these simulated lessons into the tangible, real-world change our food system requires.
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.