Behind the new national park access rules: digital upgrades, political branding, and rising costs for international visitors
This week, the Department of Interior rolled out a series of changes to national park access: digital passes launching in January, new pass artwork featuring President Trump, and substantially higher fees for international visitors. The announcement frames it all as “modernized, more affordable national park access” that “puts American families first.”
What’s Changing?
Starting January 1, 2026, the new pricing structure will look like this:
For US Residents:
- Annual pass: $80 (unchanged)
- Ten “patriotic fee-free days” including Memorial Day, Independence Day weekend, Constitution Day (no, I had never heard of this either), Theodore Roosevelt’s birthday, and Flag Day (which also happens to be Trump’s birthday) For Non-US Residents:
- Annual pass: $250 (up from $80)
- Additional $100 per-person surcharge on top of standard entrance fees at 11 parks (Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Rocky Mountain, Zion, Bryce Canyon, Grand Teton, Arches, Acadia, Joshua Tree, and Glacier)
- Excluded from all fee-free days So if an international family of four wants to visit Yellowstone for a day, they’re paying the standard $35 vehicle fee plus $400 in surcharges. Alternatively, they could buy the new $250 international annual pass. That still appears to cover per-vehicle entry, so it could be more cost-effective if they’re visiting multiple parks. It’s honestly a bit of an odd structure to have the “a la carte” so substantially more than the annual.
They’ve also implemented digital passes, which are straightforward and overdue. Congress mandated them, the technology exists, and they make practical sense. You can store them on your phone, link them to physical cards, manage everything through Recreation.gov. This is a concrete improvement, but digital passes were actually mandated by Congress under the Biden administration.
The conversation around all of it is more complicated.
The Math Doesn’t Quite Math
The Interior Department estimates the new pricing structure will bring in $90 million per year. That assumes international visitation holds steady, which seems unlikely given that international visitors to the US have already seen a precipitous decline.
Here’s a few things that have happened recently with National Parks.
- The National Park Service has a $22 billion maintenance backlog
- The recent government shutdown resulted in an estimated $41 million in uncollected fees
- The “Big Beautiful Bill” rescinded $267 million slated for NPS funding via the Inflation Reduction Act
- Since January 2025, the agency has lost around 25% of its permanent workforce Placed against current needs and recent cuts, $90 million feels small.
This new revenue stream generates roughly a third of what was just cut, about twice what was lost during the shutdown, and less than 0.5% of the maintenance backlog per year. $90 million is not an insignificant amount but it’s not addressing the roots of any problems.
I don’t actually have an issue with differential pricing for international visitors, as a concept. Ecuador charges $200 for international visitors to the Galapagos while nationals pay $30. The Taj Mahal is 22x more expensive for foreign visitors. Machu Picchu is about twice as much. New Zealand charges international visitors more for popular hikes. There are other examples as well. The logic is straightforward: taxpayers have funded the infrastructure and conservation work that makes these places accessible and protected, and differential pricing is one way to reflect that investment.
Outside of actual visitor caps and more stringent reservation systems (which have their own challenges), pricing is one of the few tools available to manage heavy visitation. And, if you’ve spent time in a popular National Park in the last few years, you’re probably aware of the challenges with high-volume international tourism. There’s a reasonable case to be made that higher fees could both fund better management and moderate demand. Whether they’re well-considered amounts, I think is another question.
That said, the timing and optics are terrible. The US is the only country among 184 studied where foreign visitor spending is expected to fall in 2025. International tourism has been declining since early in the year. Tariffs, immigration enforcement, travel advisories from European governments, and visa processing backlogs have all contributed to travelers reconsidering the US as a destination.
Sure, the pass increases might be a drop in the bucket in the overall cost of an international vacation. But if a family decides that additional surcharges are the “cherry on top” of an already abrasive US foreign policy and goes somewhere else, it’s not just park entrance fees that disappear. It’s revenue for hotels, restaurants, guide services, gas stations, etc.
The $90 million in new revenue could help park budgets marginally, but it may not offset what the broader tourism economy loses if international visitation continues its decline.
Symbolism Isn’t Stewardship
What’s most striking to me about the announcement is how much of it feels more about symbolism than anything else. New physical pass designs feature Trump alongside George Washington for US residents, while international visitors get a photo of Glacier National Park. The announcement details “resident-only patriotic fee-free days” and makes sure to note that Flag Day is President Trump’s birthday. There’s substantial focus on framing things around “bold, patriotic designs,” “America-first” pricing, and exclusion of international visitors from free days.
Putting Trump’s face on the pass is a bad idea, and I’d say the same about any sitting president. You could make an argument for Teddy Roosevelt, but even that would be problematic. These passes used to showcase photos of real landscapes and wildlife, chosen from the Share the Experience photo contest. That felt…right.
Making it about whoever currently holds office turns a parks pass into a politicized campaign artifact, which is something it absolutely shouldn’t be.
The announcement mentions “Revenue generated from new fee policies will be invested directly back into America’s national parks, supporting upgrades to visitor facilities, essential maintenance, and improved services nationwide.” But that’s a bold statement when the administration has taken an axe to both funding and staff. The parks are being treated like assets to be branded and monetized rather than long-term conservation challenges requiring sustained investment and institutional capacity.
What we’re left with is heavily politicized positioning on a product that’s becoming harder to deliver. The announcement is heavy on “America-first” messaging while the parks themselves are losing the staff, funding, and institutional capacity that actually make them accessible and functional. You can’t paper over a $22 billion backlog and a gutted workforce with $90 million and a redesigned pass.
