President Signs Executive Order That Increases National Park Fees For Foreign Visitors
"Making America Beautiful Again by Improving America's National Parks" aims to increase park access for Americans
On the eve of Independence Day, July 3, 2025, President Trump signed a sweeping executive order titled “Making America Beautiful Again by Improving Our National Parks.”
This directive overhauls the U.S. approach to national park access and funding, proposing higher entry fees for foreign visitors, reserving prime access for U.S. citizens, and redirecting those revenues into long-overdue park infrastructure upgrades.
The executive order—part of Trump’s broader “Make America Beautiful Again” conservation initiative—is already stirring debate in environmental, tourism, and political circles.
Supporters say it protects taxpayer investment, aligns with global best practices, and addresses the National Park Service’s $23 billion maintenance backlog. Critics, on the other hand, argue it may hinder tourism, reduce international goodwill, and politicize America’s public lands (even more).
Raising Fees on Foreign Visitors
At the center of the executive order is a new fee structure that distinguishes between American—including both U.S. citizens and legal residents—and international parkgoers.
Section 2 of the order directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, where appropriate, to develop a strategy that increases entrance and recreational pass fees for non-U.S. residents at national park sites where fees are already charged.
The logic is straightforward, according to the administration: American taxpayers “fund the national parks and public lands with their tax dollars, yet they are currently charged the same rate as foreign visitors who do not pay taxes.” The administration argues that Americans “pay more to see their own national treasures than foreign visitors do.”
Some nuance is desperately needed here, though.
This simplified reasoning, of course, does not take into account the thousands of dollars international tourists pay for things like airfare and vehicle rentals—literally injecting foreign money into the U.S. economy—which is something many American park visitors don’t (have to) do.
Also, for the record, in 2022, the latest year for which data is available, there were 153.8 million taxpayers, while the National Park Service’s budget was 3.3 billion.
This in effect means that each taxpayer contributed $21.5 to the funding of the entire National Park System—or 5 cents per park site. (There were 424 sites in 2022.)
According to the administration’s FY 2026 budget, where this was first officially proposed, a foreign visitor surcharge could generate more than $90 million annually—although it did not specify how they ended up with that number.
In a statement released alongside the official executive order, the administration ups that number significantly, saying that this national park fee increase for foreign visitors “will raise hundreds of millions for conservation projects that improve our national parks.”
No details about how the fee increase would be implemented were specified.
Reinvesting in America’s Parks
All revenues from these new fees must, per the executive order, be used to fund improvements at the national parks and public lands themselves. These include:
Upgrading deteriorating roads, visitor centers, and trails
Improving restroom facilities, signage, and accessibility infrastructure
Preserving wildlife habitats and sensitive ecosystems
Addressing the National Park Service’s ballooning deferred maintenance backlog, which has grown to a staggering $23 billion in 2025
The Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) of 2020, passed during Trump’s first term, created the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund to tackle this very backlog.
While that is true—and the GAOA was a fantastic piece of legislation—we also cannot forget that the current Trump administration’s policies have resulted in a 24% reduction of National Park Service staff.
Additionally, their Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request calls for a gigantic 1.2 billion cut to the Park Service’s operational budget.
This new executive order to raise funds by charging foreign visitors more may be an attempt to offset some of those cuts, though it remains unclear how that would work in practice.
How Other Countries Handle Tourism Pricing
While controversial in the U.S., charging foreign visitors more for access to national parks and public lands is actually quite commonplace abroad.
In fact, it is often seen as a best practice in sustainable tourism policy.
Ecuador charges foreigners $200 to visit the Galápagos Islands—more than six times what locals pay.
Bhutan imposes a daily fee of $200 to $250 on foreign tourists as part of its “high value, low impact” tourism model.
South Africa’s Kruger National Park charges non-residents roughly four times more than domestic visitors.
Chile’s Torres del Paine National Park charges locals $14 while foreign visitors pay $56.
Japan and Indonesia are also adopting location-based surcharges or tourist taxes at iconic sites like Mount Fuji and Bali temples.
Popular European cities like Barcelona, Venice, and Dubrovnik charge a variety of additional taxes to tourists visiting their historic centers.
Even in certain popular destinations within the United States, charging non-local tourists more has become a common practice. Hawaii, for example, adds a “tourist tax” to hotel, vacation rental, and cruise ship cabin bookings.
Economists at PERC (the Property and Environment Research Center), which has pushed for higher fees for foreign park visitors for years, argue that implementing a similar system in the U.S.—even modestly—could generate hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
One PERC proposal suggested a relatively small $25 surcharge on foreign visitors that could net an additional $330 million per year without significantly deterring tourism.
“The math is compelling,” PERC says. “With roughly 14 million international visitors to U.S. national parks annually, a $100 surcharge would generate, even allowing for a bit of price elasticity, over $1.2 billion a year.”
This, too, requires some nuance.
Although it’s true that about 14 million international tourists visit American national parks each year, not all of them visit park sites that charge an entrance fee.
In fact, only about 100 national park sites do actually charge an entrance fee—more than 340 don’t.
That includes ultra-popular parks like the Blue Ridge Parkway, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Mount Rushmore National Memorial, and Statue of Liberty National Monument—all of which are free to visit, except for possible transportation or parking fees, which would not be affected by this particular executive order.
So, it’s fair to assume that a significant percentage of those 14 million international park visitors won’t actually pay more at all.
To avoid logistical bottlenecks, PERC and other researchers recommend collecting the surcharge electronically—at the time of flight check-in, rental car booking, or hotel reservation—rather than at the park gate.
Alternatively, another—potentially easier—way to do this could be to increase entrance fees across the board and then give U.S. residents a significant discount upon showing their driver’s license or other form of government-issued ID.
This is a common practice in many museums in Europe, for example—including the Louvre—where EU residents pay significantly less than non-EU visitors.
Prioritizing American Families
Another major pillar of the order is “putting Americans first.”
Section 2(f) mandates that the Department of the Interior give U.S. residents preferential access in high-demand lotteries and reservation systems for activities such as hiking Angels Landing in Zion National Park, driving the Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier National Park, or visiting Arches or Yosemite during peak hours.
The order also calls for exploring an increase of the price of the America the Beautiful pass for non-U.S. residents.
This approach, according to administration officials, ensures that Americans—whose taxes help fund the park system—are not priced out or out-competed by international tour groups.
Expanding Global Tourism—With a Twist
While the executive order emphasizes prioritizing U.S. residents, in Section 2(d), it also directs the Department of the Interior and the State Department to promote international tourism to U.S. national parks, including to federally managed “areas that may be underutilized.”
This is an apparent attempt to ease overcrowding at flagship parks such as Yellowstone, Zion, and Grand Canyon, while funneling foreign tourism dollars into parks and monuments that struggle to attract funding and visitors.
The strategy could help balance the system and generate economic activity in more rural areas—without compromising flagship sites.
Rolling Back Prior Policies
In a move that has sparked concern among environmental justice advocates, the executive order revokes the 2017 Obama-era Presidential Memorandum on Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Public Lands.
The Trump administration claims this step “removes unnecessary political distractions” and refocuses agency mission on conservation, recreation, and public access.
Additionally, the order tasks the Interior Department with reviewing rules implemented in or after 2021 that may restrict public recreation or over-regulate park operations. Critics view this as an opening to roll back protections or permit expanded commercial activities.
Tourism and Economic Impacts
The U.S. welcomed about 14 million international visitors to national parks in 2024—roughly 4% of total visitation.
While this may seem modest, international tourists often spend significantly more per trip than domestic travelers—estimated between $4,000 and $5,000 per person, including everything from air travel and car rentals to accommodation, food, and entrance fees.
Tourism industry leaders are watching closely. Some warn that even small increases in fees, if poorly communicated or perceived as inhospitable, could reduce international travel.
This would be on top of the effects of other Trump administration policies, which are already discouraging international tourists from visiting the U.S.
With international tourism contributing over $250 billion annually to the U.S. economy and supporting more than a million jobs, the stakes are high.
However, others argue that the surcharge amounts to an extremely small fraction of the total costs of an international trip—unlikely to deter most travelers—and that reinvesting this money into parks could improve the visitor experience for all.
Legal, Political, and Budgetary Outlook
The executive order gives broad discretion to the Secretary of the Interior, but its success depends on several unknowns:
Legal scrutiny: Differential pricing based on nationality may raise constitutional or administrative law concerns, particularly if implemented unevenly.
Congressional support: While user fees are popular among deficit hawks, some Democrats may oppose funding parks through what they view as a regressive, tourism-based model.
Implementation details: If poorly managed, new systems could confuse travelers or result in access inequities. Americans may also balk at the idea of having to show their ID to federal government employees.
The White House insists that all changes will comply with existing federal statutes, including the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), which governs how agencies set and collect recreation fees.
A Test of Values and Priorities
Whatever your opinion on this initiative is, President Trump’s “Making America Beautiful Again” executive order does represent a bold attempt to rebalance how the National Park System is funded and accessed.
Whether this strategy leads to a rejuvenated park system or generates friction with allies, advocates, and travelers depends on execution—and on the nation’s appetite for a park system that operates more like the rest of the world.
What’s certain is that the next phase of America’s conservation story is beginning, although its direction remains entirely unclear.
And, as always, its national parks are at the center of that national identity.