Expert Explains Potential Repercussions Of Fee Increases For Non-Residents

There are good reasons for the new national park fee increases for non-residents, even if how they’re being packaged is problematic, according to one expert. In any case, there will be repercussions related to the changes.

The new national park fee structure recently announced by the Trump administration has angered many, who believe it to be exclusionary or who say it will cause economic damage, especially in gateway communities. Jordan Smith, director of the Institute of Outdoor Recreation at Utah State University, says that “[w]e might not see declines in visitation right away, but we could see who shows up change.”

Smith offered some answers to common questions around the new fee structure in an article published by Utah State University. He explained that the justification for the price increase for non-residents is based on the fact that U.S. residents support the National Park System through federal taxes, while international visitors usually don’t.

“[P]ark budgets are tight and deferred maintenance is huge, so charging higher fees to long-haul visitors is seen as a way to bring in extra funds without raising prices on American families,” Smith explained.

He also mentioned that in increasing fees, the U.S. is catching up to a global pattern wherein many countries charge foreign visitors more than residents at major parks and nature sites. “Think of it like in-state versus out-of-state tuition — people who live in and help fund a place get a discount, while visitors from far away pay closer to the full cost,” he said.

Smith mentioned an Associated Press analysis that reported revenue projections of about $55 million a year at Yellowstone alone and over $1 billion nationwide from foreign visitors. However, he also pointed out that this won’t come close to covering the deferred maintenance backlog in the park system, which is in the tens of billions of dollars.

In response to the potential for the increased fees to hurt gateway communities — one of the biggest concerns related to the fee increases — Smith said that there are worries that higher fees for foreign visitors could mean fewer international guests, who often stay longer and spend more per trip in gateway communities. “On the other hand, if revenue really does improve park staffing and infrastructure, that could protect the natural ‘brand’ that many Western states depend on for tourism,” he said.

While the fee changes do have good reasons behind them and have even been considered in the past, Smith points out that “the policy is now official and tied to an ‘America-first’ message,” which could be problematic. He explained that critics worry 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 worry the policy is exclusionary and chips away at the idea of parks as part of a global heritage, especially when paired with patriotic branding and resident-only free days.”

Smith predicts that there will likely be some shifts in visitation once the new fee structure is in place starting January 1, 2026. “In the U.S., we might see slightly fewer international tour buses at the biggest parks, more pressure on staff to check passports and IDs at busy gates, and over time more digital pass use, which could shorten lines for prepared visitors but slow things down for those caught by surprise,” he explained. “Early coverage already flags worries about congestion at entrances and confusion over residency checks.”