National Park Week 2026: What's to celebrate? (April 19-27)

The National Park Service (and similar facilities of the US Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service) have been getting crushed by staff cuts.  

That and other actions by the Trump Administration make it pretty hard to take a celebratory attitude towards national parks.

As mentioned in other entries, they've been forced to dumb down historic interpretation of difficult issues like slavery ("National Park Service Dismantles Slavery Exhibit in Philadelphia," "How the National Park Service Is Deleting American History," New York Times, "What just happened at the President’s House?," "They helped design the President’s House. Now part of the site’s ‘heart has been ripped out’ after orders from Trump administration," Philadelphia Inquirer).  

Trump put his mug on the annual pass for US residents.

In keeping with the anti-science agenda of the Administration, many Park Service science programs have been gutted (eg. "National Park Service Sea Turtle Expert Says She Was Forced To Resign As Texas Coordinator Of The Sea Turtle Stranding And Salvage Network," National Parks Traveler).

And they raised the price of entry to 11 premier parks by "foreigners," to $100 per person.  Maybe it's reasonable to charge more ("A better way to fund national parks — paid for by their most eager visitors," The Hill), maybe it isn't if it reduces tourist visits, especially because international visitors spend more money than domestic travelers ("Concerns raised over significant increase in National Park fees for international visitors," KUTV, "Will Higher Fees For Foreign Visitors Help Or Hurt America’s National Parks?," EcoServants).

According to the New York Times ("At Yosemite, Rangers Are Scarce and Visitors Have Gone Wild"), as but one example, Yosemite National Park is being overrun by "bad patrons" who face little repercussion because there aren't rangers--most have been riffed.

For decades, visitors to Yosemite National Park have been greeted by green- and khaki-clad rangers, who collect fees and guard the park’s entrance. But on a chilly morning in December, there were no rangers at the park gates. Tourists descended into the majestic wilderness for free, confused by their apparent good fortune.

In fact, ranger sightings were too rare last year, according to park regulars and advocates. Visitors were far less supervised than they normally were, which had led to the wrong kind of wildness — littering, cliff jumping, drone-flying.

This is Yosemite under President Trump.

That and other actions by the Trump Administration make it pretty hard to take a celebratory attitude towards national parks.

As mentioned in other entries, they've been forced to dumb down historic interpretation of difficult issues like slavery ("National Park Service Dismantles Slavery Exhibit in Philadelphia," "How the National Park Service Is Deleting American History," New York Times, "What just happened at the President’s House?," Philadelphia Inquirer).  

Trump put his mug on the annual pass for US residents.

In keeping with the anti-science agenda of the Administration, many Park Service science programs have been gutted (eg. "National Park Service Sea Turtle Expert Says She Was Forced To Resign As Texas Coordinator Of The Sea Turtle Stranding And Salvage Network," National Parks Traveler).

And they raised the price of entry to 11 premier parks by "foreigners," to $100 per person.  Maybe it's reasonable to charge more ("A better way to fund national parks — paid for by their most eager visitors," The Hill), maybe it isn't if it reduces tourist visits, especially because international visitors spend more money than domestic travelers ("Concerns raised over significant increase in National Park fees for international visitors," KUTV, "Will Higher Fees For Foreign Visitors Help Or Hurt America’s National Parks?," EcoServants).

Pluses

• More revenue without raising costs for residents.  By charging nonresidents more, the agency can direction millions of additional dollars each year into trail work, facility upgrades, and visitor safety, while keeping the existing rate for US residents unchanged.
• Targeting visitors who already spend heavily on travel.  International tourists often spend thousands of dollars on flights, hotels, rental cars, and tours.  Supporters argue that an extra $100 per person, or a $250 annual pass is a small share of the overall trip cost, and that many visitors will still choose to come.
• Potential to manage crowding at the most stressed parks.  If higher prices slightly reduce demand at hyper-popular parks, that could ease pressure on sensitive habitats, trail systems, and small gateway towns that struggle with traffic and congestion.
• Dedicated funds for climate resilience.  Higher fees could help pay for wildfire mitigation, flood repairs, invasive species removal, and other climate adaptation work that is increasingly urgent in protected areas.

Minuses

• Equity and access. A wealthy tourist from abroad may shrug off the added cost, but a student, researcher, or low-income traveler might be priced out. The fee does not consider ability to pay. It only considers nationality. 
• Impacts on gateway communities. Many small towns near major parks depend heavily on international tourism for jobs and local revenue. Even a modest drop in foreign visitors could hurt hotels, restaurants, guide services, and local outfitters that are already operating on thin margins. 
• Mixed message about global stewardship. U.S. national parks are more than just vacation destinations. They are symbols of global conservation and shared responsibility. Making it harder and more expensive for the rest of the world to visit can feel at odds with the idea that nature is a common heritage that we all help protect. 
• Risk of over-reliance on user fees. If agencies lean too heavily on visitor surcharges, it can reduce pressure on lawmakers to provide stable, long-term public funding. Parks are public goods, not theme parks, and many advocates argue that basic operations should not depend so heavily on how much can be extracted from visitors at the gate. 
• Implementation and fairness issues. Verifying residency at crowded entrances, handling dual citizens, and dealing with tour groups adds complexity. Any system that separates people into different lines and prices will create friction, delays, and the possibility of unfair treatment.

According to the New York Times ("At Yosemite, Rangers Are Scarce and Visitors Have Gone Wild"), as but one example, Yosemite National Park is being overrun by "bad patrons" who face little repercussion because there aren't rangers--most have been riffed.

For decades, visitors to Yosemite National Park have been greeted by green- and khaki-clad rangers, who collect fees and guard the park’s entrance. But on a chilly morning in December, there were no rangers at the park gates. Tourists descended into the majestic wilderness for free, confused by their apparent good fortune.

In fact, ranger sightings were too rare last year, according to park regulars and advocates. Visitors were far less supervised than they normally were, which had led to the wrong kind of wildness — littering, cliff jumping, drone-flying.

This is Yosemite under President Trump.

Elisabeth Barton, a co-owner of a company that offers guided tours of Yosemite’s attractions, said her business had benefited from the crowds. But she has also noticed more visitors driving the wrong way down one-way roads, parking on sensitive meadows and BASE jumping off cliffs, which is not allowed. “We’re seeing the park really struggling to support the number of visitors that are coming in,” said Ms. Barton, 46. “I struggle to see the long game here.”

Wrecking the workplace--parks--as national policy.  Yosemite is but one example.  The Administration is targeting staff ("Trump Admin “Deliberately” Tanking Morale to Get Parks Staff to Quit, Official Says in Leaked Tape," The Intercept).

A recent National Park Service directive to limit high scores on employee evaluations has raised fears of more layoffs after a turbulent year of cuts and resignations.

Don Striker, a veteran agency leader who oversees parks in Alaska such as Denali National Park, said the new performance review process was crafted outside the NPS.

“To the extent that they continue to do things that many of us feel are the reign of terror, that deliberately impact our morale in hopes that they’ll drive us out, that’s OMB and that’s OPM, right?” Striker said, referring to Vought’s Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management. “And that’s what the performance thing came under.”

“Ultimately,” Striker went on, “it was not in the hands anymore even of the National Park Service political leadership or the Department of the Interior political leadership.”

Keys View, Joshua Tree National Park.  Photo: Beth Collier for the New York Times.

Ending the visitor pass reservation system/crowding/visitor management.  Because many parks are oversubscribed ("Overwhelming Yosemite Valley Summer Crowds," Restore Hetch Hetchy), as a visitor management protocol, many parks introduced reservations systems ("Want to visit Yosemite this summer? You’ll need a reservation," San Jose Mercury-News). 

They've been controversial in terms of equity etc., but they have been effective in regulating crowds.  Pretty much, the Trump Administration is dropping these systems.  They claim it's to increase access, but it's really about making parks more unmanageable and diminishing the quality of the visitor experience.