In its 2026 fiscal year budget proposal released in May, the Interior Department estimated that such a surcharge would generate more than $90 million annually.
Trump is just stupid. Many countries that rely on tourism do this, they have free or near free entry for citizens and ~$20-100 entry for foreigners. This helps them generate a significant portion of their annual budget.
I haven’t verified these numbers, but quick searching days that roughly 14–15 million foreign tourists visit U.S. national parks each year, accounting for about 4% of total park visits. If we charge $20 per person for international visitors, that’s $280–300 million annually… that’s… Peanuts for the US.
I wouldn’t be opposed to it at all if the fees are only used to preserve and maintain the national parks, but you know this fucker just wants to funnel the money into deep pockets.
I’ve seen this a number of places when traveling (Morocco, Thailand, Vietnam, Kenya come to mind). The price for foreigners was still quite reasonable (nowhere near $100) and it’s never really bothered me. Not sure if it is an equity of access measure (local income is lower) or that they already support it via taxes etcetera. Either I think is appropriate.
This also already happens in the US some places. There are resident and non-resident prices for some museums in NYC, or town/county run parks(think beaches). In Hawaii many attractions have kamaʻāina prices listed (aka resident).
The above examples usually operated on the honor system. Sometimes I saw “with ID” on a sign but never saw them checked.
I think it would be reasonable to charge slightly elevated rates to non-residents for national parks, but it should not be punitive, and it should 100% go towards supporting the parks. It’s really dumb to be pushing that now though as if people don’t already have a thousand reasons not to visit the US and spend their money here…
I had this happen in India, although I don’t know if it was the particular site or if it was a general policy. I saw it as paying less than I would have paid for a comparable museum at home, while citizens are encouraged to connect with their heritage. I was fine with it.
But the US is an expensive place, so you’re only making it unobtainable. National parks should not be a profit center, and I barely agree with charging anyone. I especially disagree with requiring ID, making this logically unenforceable.
And of course I’d expect this to turn into racism really quickly.
I’m not sure how many other countries have the equivalent of US National Parks. They’re pretty exceptional, which is why it’s a fucking travesty that they were/are trying to sell off the land.
Trump is just stupid. Many countries that rely on tourism do this, they have free or near free entry for citizens and ~$20-100 entry for foreigners. This helps them generate a significant portion of their annual budget.
I haven’t verified these numbers, but quick searching days that roughly 14–15 million foreign tourists visit U.S. national parks each year, accounting for about 4% of total park visits. If we charge $20 per person for international visitors, that’s $280–300 million annually… that’s… Peanuts for the US.
I wouldn’t be opposed to it at all if the fees are only used to preserve and maintain the national parks, but you know this fucker just wants to funnel the money into deep pockets.
Orange convicted rapist/felon is a drooling geriatric baboon. Thiel and the project 2025 gang are the ones to watch.
Which countries charges $20-100 for visiting an equivalent of a national park or museum? Not questioning you, but curious.
There are places that charges a tourist tax that is for everyone not living there and paid through the hotel or tourist apartment.
Hawaii does this. Hanauma Bay is free for locals but charges $25 for tourists.
Good idea, I bet they use it to better and maintain their parks unlike rump who will just line his pockets.
I’ve seen this a number of places when traveling (Morocco, Thailand, Vietnam, Kenya come to mind). The price for foreigners was still quite reasonable (nowhere near $100) and it’s never really bothered me. Not sure if it is an equity of access measure (local income is lower) or that they already support it via taxes etcetera. Either I think is appropriate.
This also already happens in the US some places. There are resident and non-resident prices for some museums in NYC, or town/county run parks(think beaches). In Hawaii many attractions have kamaʻāina prices listed (aka resident).
The above examples usually operated on the honor system. Sometimes I saw “with ID” on a sign but never saw them checked.
I think it would be reasonable to charge slightly elevated rates to non-residents for national parks, but it should not be punitive, and it should 100% go towards supporting the parks. It’s really dumb to be pushing that now though as if people don’t already have a thousand reasons not to visit the US and spend their money here…
I had this happen in India, although I don’t know if it was the particular site or if it was a general policy. I saw it as paying less than I would have paid for a comparable museum at home, while citizens are encouraged to connect with their heritage. I was fine with it.
But the US is an expensive place, so you’re only making it unobtainable. National parks should not be a profit center, and I barely agree with charging anyone. I especially disagree with requiring ID, making this logically unenforceable.
And of course I’d expect this to turn into racism really quickly.
Nepal and India both had places where foreigners would pay much more than locals. Fine with me, i earn much more too.
I’m not sure how many other countries have the equivalent of US National Parks. They’re pretty exceptional, which is why it’s a fucking travesty that they were/are trying to sell off the land.