When you think of the majestic canyons, snow-capped peaks, roaring waterfalls and ancient sequoias of the United States, you imagine ease of access: pay your fee, stroll in, breathe in the wilderness. But starting 1 January 2026, that will change dramatically for many overseas travellers – including Australians. Under the banner of what the US National Park Service (NPS) calls “resident-focused fee structure” and the broader Donald J. Trump-era “America-first” policy, non-US residents are about to pay far more than citizens or permanent residents.
To be precise: the standard “America the Beautiful” annual pass – the one that gives access to more than 2,000 federal recreation sites and national parks – remains at US $80 for US citizens and permanent residents. But for nonresidents, starting January 2026, the annual pass will leap to US $250 – a jump of US $170 or more than three times the resident rate.
And that’s not all. If you don’t take the annual pass – simply visiting one of the 11 most-popular national parks – you’ll now face a $US 100 surcharge on top of the regular entry fee. The parks affected include big names: Yellowstone National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Yosemite National Park, Zion National Park, Rocky Mountain National Park and others.
In effect, what was once a simple entry becomes an expensive gatekeeping: a foreign family of four visiting Grand Canyon or Yellowstone could easily pay an extra US $400 (about $512) on top of normal fees, or shell out the US $250 annual pass – a surcharge clearly designed to prioritise Americans.
The NPS and the US Department of the Interior justify the change as necessary to ensure that US taxpayers who already support park stewardship get affordable access, while international visitors “contribute their fair share” toward maintenance and conservation. Moreover, the new digital pass system promises convenience: online purchasing via Recreation.gov, coverage for up to two motorcycles under one pass, and “resident-only patriotic fee-free days” – perks unavailable to nonresidents.
In short: this isn’t just inflation. It’s a deliberate two-tier pricing system rooted in nationalist policy – a surcharge on foreigners in their own lands.
Could Australia – which already welcomes many international tourists to its national parks – follow suit?
It’s a tantalising question, especially for those of us who love our own wild bush, sandy beaches and national heritage sites.
Potentially, yes. Australia could consider differential pricing for overseas tourists visiting our national parks and natural reserves. After all, the logic is similar: international tourists often use public services, infrastructure and conservation efforts paid for by domestic taxpayers. Surcharges could help raise funds for maintenance, especially given increasing environmental pressures and the cost of preserving fragile ecosystems.
But there are risks and trade-offs to consider:
Tourism impact: Many travellers – including older Aussies planning overseas holidays – may balk at paying a premium just to enter natural attractions. That could reduce tourist numbers and hurt local economies reliant on inbound tourism.
Australia’s global image: Australia markets itself as a welcoming destination. Levying a surcharge on foreign visitors could be seen as exclusionary or xenophobic – particularly if targeted based on nationality.
Equity and fairness: Should long-term residents or migrants pay the same higher fees as short-term visitors? Who qualifies as “resident”? Reservations, residency-proof checks and administrative overhead could become contentious.
Practicality: Many national parks in Australia are remote, with flexible entry points. Policing nationality at every gate could be impractical, costly or even impossible.
Still, the new US model shows it can be done – and is being done under a nationalist policy platform.
Our Take
It’s one thing for a country to ask its citizens to chip in for the upkeep of national treasures. It’s another to tell foreign guests: “Yes, you may walk among our mountains and forests – but at a price we’ve tripled.” The new US pricing scheme smells of protectionism dressed up as conservation.
We don’t need to wind the clock back to gated estates or velvet ropes. But the moment overseas tourists are asked to pay twice what local citizens pay for access to the same natural wonders – well, that deserves scrutiny.
If Australia ever contemplates such a move, let’s hope we have more sense than to carve up our wild places along nationality lines. Instead, if extra funding is needed, let’s explore fairer, more inclusive ways: voluntary contributions, conservation levies added at booking time for overseas travellers, or a modest national park tax built into broader travel charges – not a blatant surcharge tagged to someone’s passport.
Because wild places belong to all of us. And if we must ask visitors to pay more – make it fair. Make it subtle. Make it about stewardship. Not nationalism.