In late summer 2001, my hotshot crew arrived at a small fire in Yosemite National Park. We had spent the summer criss-crossing the country, working sixteen hour days for up to twenty-one days straight, with few days off. 2001 was a record-breaking year for wildfires. Now it’s a blip. 

This Yosemite fire behaved differently than those we fought throughout the season– many of them burning hundreds of thousands of acres, some impossible to fully contain. Here, small flames slowly consumed dead undergrowth, sparing healthy brush and trees. Sunlight filtered through the open forest canopy, so different from forests overcrowded with half-dead trees. For decades, the Park Service had prioritized prescribed burning, resulting in a healthier, more resilient ecosystem. I was witnessing the program’s success. 

The 2026 U.S. fire season began with the largest wildfire in Nebraska’s history, along with country-wide drought and record-low snowpack levels. As of today, over nine million acres have burned: a quarter of the 10-year average. More than thirteen wildland firefighters have died. Federal wildfire suppression agencies recently requested $16.5 Billion in funding, compared to less than $2 Billion in 2025. Since early 2025 the Trump administration has implemented funding freezes and workforce reductions while cutting wildfire research programs. The federal restructuring was confusing enough to compel the creation of a flowchart by the National Smokejumper Association. In March 2026, the National Association of Forest Service Retirees voiced concern over these chaotic changes.  

Federal wildfire suppression has been refined over the last hundred years, resulting in highly sophisticated interagency structures capable of crossing state, county, and city borders. Congress made this possible by approving the Wildland Fire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund, which operates like disaster funding. Before 2016, suppression agencies borrowed from fire prevention programs. Why isn’t there a fund like this for fire mitigation?  

We’ve essentially abandoned the work of fire prevention, putting communities and ecosystems at risk. Each year, fire prevention is sidelined in favor of suppression. Could it be that suppression has an outcome, easily perceived by the public? A fire ignites, suppression forces take action, and the fire is extinguished. This creates the illusion that suppression is more pressing than prevention. Fire prevention is mostly invisible, with barriers including liability, limited workforce, bureaucratic delays, and insurance liability in cases of prescribed burns turning into wildfires, a rare outcome. Public understanding is sparse. Fire is primarily perceived as destructive, rather than capable of positive environmental outcomes.  

Don’t get me wrong: Fire suppression is essential. We must respond when wildfires threaten communities. Yet the threat of wildfire is in itself an argument for expanded fire prevention programs. Nearly all North American ecosystems are fire-adapted, dependent on fire for ecological balance and regeneration. Larger, more destructive fires leave footprints that prime landscapes for larger, destructive fires. Prevention interrupts this toxic feedback loop.  

We need a non-negotiable, exclusive federal multi-year reserve fund for science-based wildfire prevention. This, coupled with federal funding channels for nonprofit and community groups, could create thousands of jobs and prevent more catastrophic fire seasons.  

On the fire in Yosemite, I was struck by how those small flames meandered through the undergrowth. Not every fire will burn this way, but most fires are now burning too hot and too frequently, endangering humans and ecosystems alike. We can change this.