Why America’s National Parks Just Got More Expensive for International Visitors

A lesson on price discrimination

This week, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced one of the largest pricing changes ever to the national park system. And it’s aimed squarely at international visitors.

Beginning January 1, 2026, the America the Beautiful Pass will jump from $80 to $250 for non-U.S. residents. However, U.S. residents will continue to pay $80. The Department of the Interior called it a “resident-focused fee structure that puts American families first.”

This shift isn’t happening in a vacuum. The Louvre recently announced a 45% price increase for non-EU visitors, also beginning in 2026, to help raise €20 million for security upgrades.

Around the world, public spaces are increasingly charging tourists more. Let’s talk about the economics shaping this moment. If done correctly, this policy can improve economic and environmental outcomes.

The Economics

For the U.S., this move blends price discrimination, congestion management, and political signaling—a trifecta of economic and political policies.

National parks face a fundamental economic problem: scarcity. They have limited space, staff, and infrastructure. When a resource is both valuable and overused, price becomes the lever policymakers reach for.

That’s where third-degree price discrimination comes in. This occurs when different, identifiable groups pay different prices for the same product. In this case, the distinction is simple: U.S. residents vs. international visitors.

Here’s what that accomplishes:

1. Capture higher willingness to pay

International tourists treat U.S. national parks like bucket-list destinations. That means that when they do visit, they’re less sensitive to price changes (inelastic demand), making them the ideal group from which to raise additional revenue.

2. Keep domestic prices politically protected

Elected officials want to avoid headlines like “National Park Fees Double for American Families.” Price discrimination allows the government to fund parks without angering the voters who use them most. Tourists don’t vote!

3. Ease overcrowding

Some of America’s most popular parks are chronically over capacity. Charging higher fees for a subset of visitors helps reduce congestion without raising prices across the board.

Price Discrimination Around You

And this isn’t unique. We see this form of pricing everywhere:

• Universities charging in-state vs. out-of-state tuition

• Streaming services like Spotify and Netflix are offering student discounts

• Theme parks offering local-resident pricing

• Movie theaters offering senior discounts

Different groups, different prices, same product.

When Algorithms Start Guessing Who You Are

Traditional price discrimination relies on being able to identify groups clearly. But in the digital economy, companies increasingly infer who you are. Although not actual price discrimination, this is “algorithmic segmentation” to proxy for your willingness to pay.

In 2012, Orbitz made headlines for showing Mac users more expensive hotel options. Their pricing strategy was based on the assumption that Apple users had a higher willingness to pay.

Since then, platforms like Uber have taken this further. Uber’s dynamic pricing is often cited as the closest real-world example of first-degree price discrimination, where the goal is to charge each customer the maximum they’re willing to pay at that moment. While Uber doesn’t achieve pure first-degree discrimination, the algorithm is designed to get as close as possible.

That is why data is so valuable; it allows firms to identify your willingness to pay.

The Bottom Line

This isn’t simply a fee increase; it is an attempt to increase government revenue through third-degree price discrimination. Although economically sound, it raises questions about who national parks are for, how we fund shared spaces, and how the U.S. aligns with global tourism norms.

But there’s another concern worth paying attention to: this price hike is arriving exactly as international tourism to the U.S. is already falling. Changes in tariff policies, stricter immigration enforcement, and a global perception that the U.S. is harder to visit have all contributed to the decline.

Yellowstone is a clear example—international visitors fell from about 30% in 2018 to just 14.8% in 2024. A steep price increase on top of an already shrinking global tourism base adds real uncertainty about how gateway communities and the parks themselves will be affected.

What do you think about price discrimination in your world? Where do you see it, and how does it make you feel?