National Parks to charge international tourists extra based on visa status

What it does

This bill authorizes the National Park Service to charge international visitors (tourists on temporary visas) an additional surcharge on top of standard entrance fees to national parks and on annual recreation passes. The surcharge amount is set by individual park superintendents to maximize revenue while maintaining visitation. All surcharge revenue stays within the parks for maintenance, staffing, and visitor services.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is a visa-status-based surcharge on park entry — a form of price discrimination targeting a specific class of visitors based on immigration status rather than residency, citizenship, or any traditional park-management principle. While framed as revenue-raising, it is functionally a discriminatory fee structure.

What the text implies

• Park staff must verify visa status at entry gates, creating new administrative burden and potential for discrimination or privacy concerns in implementation.
• Surcharge amount is set by individual superintendents with no statutory cap, creating wide variation and potential for revenue-maximization strategies that may discourage international visitation.
• Bill does not require parks to use surcharge revenue for visitor-facing improvements; it may be diverted to general operations, making the discriminatory fee structure a de facto tax on international tourists.
• Exception for Washington Monument but not other iconic parks suggests political carve-out rather than principled policy; no clear rationale for differential treatment.
• Third-party travel vendors may collect surcharge, creating private intermediaries with access to visa-status data and potential data-sharing implications.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Domestic visitors and park operations benefit from dedicated revenue for maintenance and staffing. However, international tourists face a discriminatory fee structure based on immigration status, and the bill creates administrative complexity around visa-status verification at park gates. The net civic effect depends on whether parks genuinely use surcharge revenue to improve conditions (benefit to all visitors) or merely substitute it for appropriated funding (no net public gain).

Who stands to gain

• National Park Service (dedicated revenue stream)
• Individual national park units (retained surcharge proceeds)

Named in the bill

National Park Service, Secretary of the Interior, Park superintendents, International visitors (nonimmigrants under INA 101(a)(15)(B) and 217), Third-party travel vendors, National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund, Washington Monument, International Peace Parks

Where it stands

2 cosponsors: 2 Republicans.

• Jul 22, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jul 22, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Agriculture and House Committee on Natural Resources · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period…”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

1 lobbying clients named this bill on 1 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $140,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 40 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.

Riley Moore, the sponsor, reported $569,900 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Heritage Action for America — $140,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 16, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.