National Parks
 

The Trump administration has announced new entrance fees for non-US-resident visitors for National Parks, effective January 1, 2026.

Beginning Jan. 1, 2026, the Annual Pass will cost $80 for U.S. residents and $250 for nonresidents, ensuring that American taxpayers who already support the National Park System receive the greatest benefit. Nonresidents without an annual pass will pay a $100 per person fee to enter 11 of the most visited national parks, in addition to the standard entrance fee.

https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/de...al-park-access

There's a similar discussion on the Europe Forum regarding the fee increase at the Louvre for non-EU visitors.

My comments there are, in part, "I've argued that America's National Park annual pass should cost more than the meager $80 even for Americans. We two empty nesters pay the same amount as a family/carload of four or six, and use ½ to ⅓ of the resources (restrooms and other public facilities.) For the National Parks there should be tiered pricing like so many museum memberships. And, the fee increase is only for a handful of national parks; that's not terribly different from cities like Amsterdam, Barcelona, Venice, Hallstatt, and so forth from limiting tourist activity."

Of course we do. There is nothing wrong with a two-tiered fee system, however. A quick search will inform you that Ecuador charges almost 7x more for international visitors than nationals to visit the Galapagos; and many African game reserves charge significantly more for non-nationals to tour as part of their conservation efforts. Even Disneyland offers discounted tickets for some locals. As for the increased NPS fee, it only affects a handful of parks, with the money going to park maintenance.

Almost every country in the world charges foreign visitors a premium for at least some things whether it be parks or museums or public transport - or all of the above. Not sure why you sound so outraged?.

Google AI: "Reasons against charging international visitors more to enter U.S. national parks include potential harm to local economies, reduced global goodwill, and issues with equity and implementation." We want to encourage int'l visitors go visit national parks because the spend a tremendous amount on food and lodging near the parks.

What countries are you speaking off? Sure, some afrikan country do it, but this is because a lot of citizen in Africa cannot afford the normal price. Maybe there are also some 3.world-countries in Asia, but I don't know it.
Here in Europe it is a totally rare experience. And if, then the different prices are maybe for Museo or something else, but not for natural wonders. Do you know, that almost everywhere in Europe the entrance to the Nationalparks is free???

Oh, and I just read this:
"""Ecuador charges almost 7x more for international visitors than nationals to visit the Galapagos"""
Will you really compare the rich America with a poor 3.world country like Ecuador?

The Galapagos is a unique situation. It's a bit silly to say this is a good comparison. What other national parks in Ecuador charge that kind of money to enter?

The new Louvre admittance for non-EU visitors is 37 Euros, far, far less than the new cost of visiting a US National Park for foreign visitors. That family/carload of four or six will most likely spend a lot more on lodging, food, souvenirs, etc.

Ecuadorians aren't visiting the U.S. in appreciable numbers. Why do you think international travelers are charged so much to visit the Galapagos?

Because Ecuador is not a third world country. It is a middle-income country; and hence, desires the increased tourist revenue from international visitors to the Galapagos.

I beg to differ. At "our" local NP (Great Falls NP) we routinely see carloads of families (15-20 people) entering the park, lugging all their food and beverages. At the annual pass rate of $80, that's still 4+ people per vehicle using the restrooms, the barbeque facilities, and the rubbish bins. They're not buying anything in the gift shop. Even at the one-time entry of $20, that is still a burden on the parks.

Further, when we were posted in East Tennessee, we saw the same thing in the GSMNP. Carloads of people in the park taking advantage of the free admission and not spending money IN the park at the gift shop, yet fully using the restrooms, picnic tables, and barbeque stands. Yes, I know that the GSMNP is unique, but it's simply human nature to avail one's self of the "free" at the expense of others.

i won't get into politics, but I am all in favor of hiking the NP fees on a tier-system. We are two (American) empty-nesters who pay a measly $80 annually to enjoy the parks, and we usually recoup our fee within a couple of months. I wouldn't think twice about paying double for our annual pass, as I know we would still recoup the cost. Ditto for our 20-something children, who climb up and down any NP mountain they find.

We also recoup our State Park pass within the first quarter of each year. America's National and State Parks are woefully underfunded, and woefully overburdened by visitors who don't appreciate them.

Fourfortravel, I don’t disagree with anything you said in the above post. The Parks could use some respect. We paid $80 for our NP passes that are good for life. Definitely a steal, so we throw extra money into donation bins whenever we visit.

Several apples and oranges in your post. Many national parks in Europe are not comparable to US NP’s. Yosemite NP For an example is a closed environment with entrance gates and controlled entry. By comparison say Cairngorms NP is just an area of natural beauty with villages, towns, businesses even some industry within the boundaries. One wouldn’t even know they were in a park excel for a few road signs.

Lots of first world countries deny museum discounts to foreign visitors - like for the senior citizen or youth discounts one needs a national post code or ID. Same for student or youth transport discounts.

"but it's simply human nature to avail one's self of the "free" at the expense of others"

I disagree with that statement. It is not "simply human nature" to take advantage. You can make a donation to national parks if you want to support them more than the entry fee.

We are the really old folks who spent $10 for our lifetime pass. We do spend $$$ on lodging, food, etc. in the parks and usually visit at the least crowded times. I love the parks and don’t feel guilty about this benefit of being a long time tax payer and supporter of the park system.

And, one can fill their car with friends to take advantage of the annual park pass. Normally DH and I have one annual park pass. This year he signed the back; and what I discovered a couple of times earlier in the year is that at Great Falls Park, where I often take DDog, I was not permitted to enter the park (unless I paid) because my name did not match that on the card, no doubt the result of too many people sharing/taking advantage of their park passes. Eventually I decided to purchase my own card to avoid future hassles.

Netflix discovered the same issue and has cracked down on sharing. So, yeah, it's simply human nature to take advantage of the "free."

Costco also had to crack down on people sharing membership cards. It's not something I have ever done, so no, I don't think it's "human nature". You can only fill your car with one person per seat belt. I think these may be things that are specific to one or two Parks. Great Falls is close to Washington, DC and highly-populated N. Virginia. Most of the Parks affected by the additional $100 per person are not close to large urban areas.

"You can only fill your car with one person per seat belt."

In Northern Virginia the Expeditions and Suburbans and Tahoes hold 8 people. That's EIGHT PEOPLE using the resources of ONE Park Pass. We've witnessed this firsthand. Even if an 8-person filled vehicle is coming to spend an afternoon at Great Falls NP at a mere $20 daily pass, it's still an overload on resources.

The NP's affected by the change in fees include Acadia, Bryce Canyon, Everglades, Glacier, Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Rocky Mountain, Sequoia & Kings Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Zion. These parks are already among the most overcrowded.

This isn't rocket science. Our National Parks deserve respect, and proper admission fees.

However much it may annoy you. and that seems to be a lot, they are still complying with the rules, which you did not. Our National Parks also deserve adequate staffing.

Our National Parks deserve respect, and proper admission fees

Make them more expensive and keep the riff-raff out? Is that what you mean? Isn't it important that they are as accessible as possible for as many people as possible? Overcrowding is a different, and important, issue.

I think the $80 annual park pass is a grand bargain. I agree the pass price could/should be increased and/or tiered, including asking international visitors to pay a surcharge (tho, IMO, not the nearly X4 one that has been established for 2026).

The NP's affected by the change in fees include Acadia, Bryce Canyon, Everglades, Glacier, Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Rocky Mountain, Sequoia & Kings Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Zion. These parks are already among the most overcrowded.

Because they are among the most popular with domestic and international visitors. No surprise there. Many of the parks you named are now using reservations systems which have been largely successful in metering visitors to reduce overcrowding. The full list from this year:

• Acadia National Park
• Arches National Park
• Carlsbad Caverns National Park
• Glacier National Park
• Haleakala National Park
• Mount Rainier National Park
• Rocky Mountain National Park
• Shenandoah National Park
• Yosemite National Park
• Zion National Park
• Muir Woods

https://www.earthtrekkers.com/nation...-reservations/

I don't understand your pique with 8 people entering the park on one daily pass. It's not nor was it intended to be a "cover your plate" fee. It's also not disrespectful or an example of getting something for nothing.

Just for information for any future visitor to the DC area, Great Falls is managed by two separate National Park Service sites which require two separate admissions. Great Falls Park is on the Virginia side and the Chesapeake and Ohio Historical National Park is on the Maryland side. Of course if you have an annual pass you don't have to pay twice, at the present time, even if you have 8 people in your vehicle. You will get a reduced admission if you enter on foot, bicycle, or horse back.

This has nothing at all to do with "keeping the riff-raff" (Your terms) out. This has everything to do with carloads of people taking advantage of one person's park pass.

I'm happy to purchase two passes so that DH and I can access the parks. Our NP are woefully underfunded, and access to them is being abused.

Nobody's "taking advantage". Those are the rules and they are following them.

There are only "Individual" park passes, not vehicle hang tags. I'll repeat myself again here, but NPS needs to revamp its fee structure.

They are not breaking the rules BUT the rules are stoooopid! Eight people should not be allowed in using one pass -- ridiculous.

Fair enough. I looked at the "rules" and found: "Each Annual Pass admits pass owner and passengers in a non-commercial vehicle at per-vehicle fee areas; and pass owner + 3 adults, not to exceed 4 adults, where per-person fees are charged. Children under 16 are always admitted free." Still, we've witnessed 3 vehicles with more than 20 adult persons entering our local NP, taking over multiple picnic tables and barbeque pits on numerous occasions this past spring and summer.

Yet, DDog and I were denied admission to "our" park (until I paid) because DH had signed the pass and was not with me.

I agree that rules are incredibly STOOOPID. The NPS really needs to rethink its entry fee structure.

You have no way of knowing how many of those "more than 20" people had their own passes. It's quite possible that several did, and showed them, but they all traveled together.

Just give it up. The NPS seriously needs to reform its entry system.