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.
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.
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…
Nepal and India both had places where foreigners would pay much more than locals. Fine with me, i earn much more too.
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.