By Daelyn Benally, ASU sustainable food systems graduate student
The Model USDA 2026 event brought together nearly 200 undergraduate and graduate students from schools across the country, each with different perspectives and roles to play in the simulation. One scenario assigned to students involved creating a public awareness campaign around prescribed burning. Students role-playing as stakeholders, government officials, and Tribal representatives came together to listen, understand differing perspectives, and identify compromises that would determine whether the campaign would be accepted by the student acting as the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.
Why prescribed burning?
Animal activist groups such as Save Our Friends have blocked access points in forests and promoted the belief that wildfires primarily kill wildlife. In an effort to avoid violent confrontation and growing public tension, the Secretary of Agriculture in our scenario called for a public education campaign on prescribed fire.
The scientific consensus on prescribed burning has been studied for years and supports its role in promoting healthy forests. Prescribed burning reduces excess fuel in forested areas, helping to prevent intense wildfires. Simply put, it is mitigation. New growth following fire reduces invasive species and encourages the return of native plants. Agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service, the Department of the Interior, and sovereign Tribal Nations all play a role in this work.
However, some stakeholders in Model USDA offered important cautions that extended beyond the science itself. These concerns shaped the campaign’s regional focus. The student acting as Director of Conservation and Research at Los Padres Forest Watch warned that prescribed burns may harm certain native species in the West, particularly chaparral (creosote). Chaparral seeds are released and germinated under intense fire, while prescribed burns are typically mild. As a result, these burns may also promote the spread of non-native grasses.
This concern is especially significant because chaparral is a culturally important plant traditionally used by Indigenous tribes for medicine, fiber, and food. Indigenous peoples of the Americas practiced cultural burning long before colonization. Native Nations have the right to decide how prescribed burns are administered, particularly when cultural resources may be affected. Many Tribal Nations are small and are not always located within their historical homelands. When chaparral grows outside reservation boundaries, tribes must rely on landowners to consider these impacts when planning burns.
With regional data being essential, implementation requires experts on the ground. Yet the stark reality is that many Native Nations lack the capacity to support these roles. Employment opportunities are often located off-reservation, leaving communities isolated and limiting opportunities for growth and improvement. This raises an important question: how do we prioritize supporting Native Nations and rural communities while asking them to shoulder this responsibility?
Another concern raised in our scenario was the impact of prescribed burns on air quality. However, it is nearly impossible to accurately measure long-term air quality impacts during prescribed fires. The EPA does not yet have sufficient data, and air movement makes it difficult to determine whether pollution originates from a specific fire or from another state altogether. This uncertainty raises serious concerns about the health of those who work in and around these conditions.
Beyond the data, prescribed burning relies on frontline firefighters—the often-overlooked backbone of forest management. Firefighters frequently experience long-term health issues, are severely underpaid, and face disproportionately high suicide rates. Many people are unaware that a significant portion of the firefighting workforce is made up of incarcerated individuals. This reality was raised by a student playing the role of a public stakeholder from the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP).
This urgency was underscored by the sobering news of a firefighter’s self-immolation on the steps of a UC Santa Cruz building—a tragic reminder of the immense burden placed on those tasked with managing fire. Prescribed burning requires nationwide firefighter recruitment and must include health benefits that prioritize both mental and physical well-being.
Breaking news regarding the government’s interest in logging and forest thinning further exposed the reality of budget constraints. Initially, the campaign included educational programming for farmers and communities, but spending cuts forced stakeholders to prioritize funding. CLASP advocated for directing resources toward improved personal protective equipment for firefighters.
The framing of forests primarily as a resource also drew the attention of the Department of the Interior. Should we invest in creating healthy, thriving forests if they are ultimately treated as commodities to be extracted? Trees do not regenerate easily. Questions of land jurisdiction further complicate this issue.
The Public Lands Council (PLC), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) all expressed interest in grazing as an alternative to fire. However, grazing on public lands—particularly BLM land—is far more complex than it appears due to jurisdictional challenges involving federal, trust, and Tribal lands. Grazing on BLM land currently costs $1.35 per Animal Unit Month (AUM).
These organizations emphasized that they did not want ranchers to bear additional costs and proposed covering expenses to promote grazing as an alternative. Yet this raised questions about public perception and fairness. How do agencies address resistance from those who refuse assistance or prefer to earn support independently? For some, the proposal felt too good to be true.
Impressively, the workgroup listened to these concerns and reached a final proposal presented to the student acting as the Secretary of Agriculture. The public awareness campaign reflected the depth of stakeholder engagement and included Indigenous knowledge and partnerships in implementation, regional expertise, continued collaboration with interest groups, funding for research, and education and workshops on prescribed burning. The Secretary of Agriculture accepted the proposal without hesitation.
Prescribed fire has many layers that are often overlooked. If we truly want healthier forests, we must also confront the political dynamics that shape how fire policy is implemented. Equity cannot be an afterthought in a public campaign—it must guide who decides, who benefits, and who bears the burden.
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.