America’s national parks are set to become a little less accessible—and a lot more expensive—for international travelers starting January 1, 2026. In a sweeping policy change announced just before Thanksgiving, the U.S. Interior Department confirmed that foreign visitors will face a $100 per-person entrance surcharge at 11 of the country’s most visited national parks, unless they’ve already purchased a newly priced $250 “America the Beautiful” annual pass. For U.S. residents, the same pass will remain at $80, and the per-person surcharge won’t apply at all.
The move, which stems from a Trump administration directive and was included in the fiscal year 2026 budget proposal, is expected to generate more than $90 million in new revenue, according to reporting from Nexstar Media and other outlets. The affected parks are among the crown jewels of the National Park Service: Acadia, Bryce Canyon, Everglades, Glacier, Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Rocky Mountain, Sequoia & Kings Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Zion. Together, these parks drew millions of international guests last year—14.6 million out of a record 331.8 million total visits, to be exact.
For decades, America’s national parks have been pitched as global treasures, open to all regardless of nationality. But this new fee structure is more than just a price hike; it’s a shift in philosophy, and the messaging around it is raising eyebrows. Federal officials argue the changes are about fairness, pointing out that American taxpayers already support these public lands through their federal taxes. As a result, they say, it’s only right that residents keep affordable access while international guests pay a bit more.
“The policy is designed to preserve affordability for U.S. families while helping address long-term maintenance needs estimated in the tens of billions,” officials have said, according to Nexstar Media. The National Park Service has long relied on entrance fees, which are used to “enhance visitor experience” under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. Currently, only 106 of the 475 sites managed by the Park Service charge an entrance fee, with the highest being $35 per private vehicle at marquee destinations like Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Zion.
But the new policy goes further, introducing a tiered pricing model that is rare for U.S. public lands—and sparking a debate about what message America is sending the world. Jordan Smith, director of the Institute of Outdoor Recreation at Utah State University, told the press, “The language surrounding the rollout is now official and tied to an ‘America-first’ message.” He added, “Some fear it sends the wrong message, turning shared global treasures into something more like a luxury product and making parks feel less welcoming to the world.”
Critics argue that while charging non-residents more isn’t unusual—many countries do it, after all—the political framing matters. The new “resident-only patriotic fee-free days” in 2026, for example, will allow U.S. residents to enter fee-charging parks for free on ten select days, including Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day, Flag Day (which also happens to be Donald Trump’s birthday), Independence Day weekend, and the National Park Service’s 110th birthday. International visitors, however, will not be able to take advantage of these days, a change from previous years when fee-free days were open to all.
“It’s not just the price—it’s the message wrapped around it,” Smith explained. He and other experts warn that the new structure, paired with patriotic language, risks making the parks feel less like global wonders and more like protected spaces for Americans alone. That could be a problem for both America’s image and its local economies.
International travelers, after all, tend to stay longer, join guided experiences, and spend more in gateway communities than their domestic counterparts. If fewer of them come—or if the visitor mix changes—places like the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite could feel the pinch. Smith cautioned, “Even if total visitation doesn’t immediately decline, who visits could change.” That means hotels, restaurants, and tour operators near the parks might see a shift in their customer base, with economic consequences that ripple far beyond the park gates.
Operationally, the new fees are expected to create some headaches, at least in the early months. International tour buses and group operators will need to have passports and residency documents checked more closely, which could slow entry and cause congestion, especially during peak travel periods. The National Park Service is rolling out a modernized digital pass system and expanded motorcyclist coverage to try to smooth the process. Starting in 2026, the motorcycle annual access pass will still cost $80, but it will now cover two bikes—one small silver lining for some visitors.
Here’s how the numbers break down for 2026: U.S. residents will continue to pay $80 for an annual pass, while nonresidents will pay $250 to avoid the $100 per-person surcharge at each of the 11 top parks. The extra revenue is earmarked for much-needed maintenance, staffing, and improvements to shuttle systems and trails—upgrades that advocates say could help protect the outdoor recreation “brand” that many Western states depend on. Still, as Smith points out, “Pairing those changes with ‘America-first’ language risks muting the practical benefits and reshaping how national parks are perceived abroad.”
It’s not just about the economics or the operational tweaks. For many critics, the heart of the issue is how the United States chooses to present its national parks to the world. Are they a shared inheritance for all humanity, or are they a perk of American citizenship? The answer, some say, is now less clear than ever.
Federal officials maintain that the new policy is about preserving park access for American families and ensuring that those who benefit most from the parks help pay for their upkeep. “The push to keep parks affordable for U.S. residents is widely understood,” one official told Nexstar Media. And indeed, with record visitation straining resources and infrastructure, the need for additional funding is hard to dispute.
Yet the rollout’s tone, with its emphasis on patriotism and exclusivity, has left some observers uneasy. “Instead of being celebrated as shared global wonders, they may start to feel like protected spaces for those who already live here,” Smith warned. Whether these changes will discourage international visitors in the long run remains to be seen—but the debate over who belongs in America’s parks is far from over.
As the calendar turns to 2026, travelers from around the world will need to dig a little deeper into their wallets—and perhaps brace for a more complicated welcome—if they want to experience the grandeur of America’s national parks. For now, the only certainty is that both the price and the politics of park access are changing, and the world is watching.