Foreigner Pricing is Xenophobic Discrimination
False Assumption: Charging foreign tourists and non-residents higher fees for entry to national parks and cultural sites is discriminatory, xenophobic, and racist.
Written by FARAgent on February 10, 2026
In the early 2020s, as international tourism surged post-pandemic, critics began labeling differential pricing for national parks and cultural sites as xenophobic discrimination. Political scientist Mneesha Gellman, testifying in U.S. immigration courts, argued that charging foreigners more violated principles of equality. Washington Post reporter Jake Spring amplified this view in articles, citing tourist complaints and images of crowded lines, like a photo of five cars waiting, as proof of unfair chaos. The idea took root amid broader debates on equity, with advocates claiming such fees targeted non-residents based on nationality alone.
This assumption fueled opposition to revenue strategies aimed at curbing overcrowding. In places like U.S. national parks, proposals for higher fees on foreign visitors stalled under accusations of racism, leaving sites strained by booming crowds. Americans, who often enjoyed subsidized access, still faced reduced enjoyment from the influx, while parks missed potential funds for maintenance. The narrative discouraged price discrimination, a common tool in economics, and reinforced calls for uniform pricing regardless of residency.
Critics now argue that the assumption overlooks standard practices in many countries, where locals subsidize sites through taxes. Mounting evidence challenges the discrimination label, pointing to benefits like reduced congestion and fairer cost-sharing. The debate remains hotly contested, with experts split on whether such pricing is prejudiced or pragmatic.
People Involved
- In the mid-2020s, Mneesha Gellman, a political scientist at Emerson College, voiced strong objections to higher fees for foreign tourists. She described the policy as one meant to make people feel nervous and uncomfortable, forcing them to alter plans based on their identities. [2]
- Around the same time, Jake Spring, a reporter for the Washington Post, highlighted what he saw as chaos in national parks. He called the surcharge another example of targeting immigrants under the Trump administration. [2]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
““It’s meant to make people feel nervous and uncomfortable and make the decision to either stay away or to modify their plans based on their identities,” said Mneesha Gellman, a political scientist at Emerson College who serves as an expert witness in U.S. immigration court. “It really is being used to sow fear.””— Should National Parks Charge Foreign Tourists More?
“How Trump’s plan to charge foreigners more is causing chaos at national parks ... Experts describe the “America-first pricing” as another example of the Trump administration’s targeting of immigrants.”— Should National Parks Charge Foreign Tourists More?
Organizations Involved
The Washington Post played a key role in advancing the view that higher fees for foreigners amounted to discrimination. In one article, it depicted the policy as chaotic and aimed at immigrants, even as evidence pointed to little actual disruption. [1][2] French worker unions took a similar stance against dual pricing at the Louvre. They labeled it a betrayal of universal access, pushing back against efforts to charge foreigners more. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (3)
“I wrote about the Washington Post article claiming “chaos” is ensuing at the eleven most popular national parks due to a New Year Trump Administration innovation of charging foreign tourists and illegal aliens more for entrance than U.S. citizens and legal residents. The underlying moral assumption was that it is DISCRIMINATORY, XENOPHOBIC, and downright RACIST to charge foreigners more than American taxpayers to visit our most in-demand national parks.”— Is Price Discrimination the Bad Kind of Discrimination?
“French worker unions have denounced the Louvre ticketing change, saying it undermines the universal mission of the world’s most visited museum.”— Is Price Discrimination the Bad Kind of Discrimination?
“The Washington Post is driven insane by the notion of a higher price for overseas visitors. ... From the Washington Post news section: How Trump’s plan to charge foreigners more is causing chaos at national parks.”— Should National Parks Charge Foreign Tourists More?
The Foundation
The idea took root in the notion that pricing based on nationality breached a basic moral code against discrimination. This led to claims that such fees eroded the core missions of public sites and bordered on racism. [1] Tourists often complained that their travel expenses entitled them to lower rates, overlooking how much they were willing to pay overall. [1] A Washington Post piece used a photo of five cars in line to suggest widespread disorder, though the image came from Joshua Tree, not an affected park, and showed routine conditions. [2] The belief that the policy targeted immigrants gained traction by downplaying exemptions for U.S. legal residents, focusing instead on short-term visitors. [2]
▶ Supporting Quotes (4)
“The underlying moral assumption was that it is DISCRIMINATORY, XENOPHOBIC, and downright RACIST to charge foreigners more than American taxpayers to visit our most in-demand national parks.”— Is Price Discrimination the Bad Kind of Discrimination?
““In general, for tourists things should be a little bit cheaper than for local people because we have to travel to come all the way here,” said Darla Daniela Quiroz, visiting from Vancouver.”— Is Price Discrimination the Bad Kind of Discrimination?
“Look at the chaos! There are five cars in line! However, Joshua Tree National Park east of Los Angeles, which has become kind of the hipster national park that L.A.’s young people visit, is not one of the eleven superstar national parks where foreign tourists are being charged extra.”— Should National Parks Charge Foreign Tourists More?
“Actually, the rule exempts from the surcharge: A U.S. Resident is defined as a United States citizen or legal resident of the United States. So legal immigrants don’t have to pay extra, just illegal immigrants (theoretically) and foreign tourists.”— Should National Parks Charge Foreign Tourists More?
How It Spread
Media outlets helped spread the assumption by framing nationality-based fees as sources of immoral disorder. The Washington Post's coverage of U.S. national parks exemplified this approach, influencing how the public saw the issue. [1][2] Social media amplified backlash against practices like dual pricing in Japanese restaurants, extending the criticism to private businesses. [1] Expert voices in the press reinforced the idea, connecting the fees to fears tied to identity, even as economic reasons underpinned the policy. [2]
▶ Supporting Quotes (4)
“Washington Post article claiming “chaos” is ensuing at the eleven most popular national parks due to a New Year Trump Administration innovation of charging foreign tourists and illegal aliens more for entrance than U.S. citizens and legal residents.”— Is Price Discrimination the Bad Kind of Discrimination?
“A seafood buffet restaurant in Tokyo’s Shibuya district was the subject of a backlash on Reddit and X last year after it started charging foreign tourists ¥1,100 (€6) more than Japanese nationals and residents for its all-you-can-eat deal.”— Is Price Discrimination the Bad Kind of Discrimination?
“But the Washington Post instead senses a sinister racist plot against affluent foreigner travelers: ... The Washington Post seems to think the surcharge demeans our sacred immigrants.”— Should National Parks Charge Foreign Tourists More?
““It’s meant to make people feel nervous and uncomfortable and make the decision to either stay away or to modify their plans based on their identities,” said Mneesha Gellman... “It really is being used to sow fear.””— Should National Parks Charge Foreign Tourists More?
Resulting Policies
By January 1, 2026, the Trump administration introduced a $100 surcharge for foreign tourists at top U.S. national parks. Critics opposed it fiercely, viewing the fee as discriminatory and rooted in bias. [1] Media reports framed the policy as an attack on immigrants, despite its focus on price discrimination for high-demand locations and exemptions for legal residents. [2]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“On 1 January this year, President Donald Trump’s administration raised the entry fee for foreign tourists in US national parks by $100 (€86) as part of his ‘America First’ policy.”— Is Price Discrimination the Bad Kind of Discrimination?
“In November, the Trump administration said it would hike visitor fees for people who are not U.S. residents, with 11 popular parks charging a $100 surcharge in addition to the entrance fee.”— Should National Parks Charge Foreign Tourists More?
Harm Caused
Critics argue that the assumption has hindered effective revenue strategies, worsening overcrowding and financial pressures at sites like the Louvre, which dealt with strikes and even a heist before adopting dual pricing. [1] Mounting evidence suggests it discourages practical price adjustments, leading to packed parks such as Yosemite and the Grand Canyon, where foreign visitors strain infrastructure funded by Americans. [2] Americans end up with subsidized but crowded access, while parks forgo income from wealthier international tourists, diminishing the experience for domestic visitors. [2]
▶ Supporting Quotes (3)
“the Louvre Museum in Paris raised admission prices for most non-European visitors by nearly half in an attempt to shore up its finances following repeated strikes, chronic overcrowding, and a brazen French Crown Jewels heist that shook the institution.”— Is Price Discrimination the Bad Kind of Discrimination?
“Demand for admission to the most famous national parks is quite high. I’m reading up on how to get a reservation to camp in Yosemite Valley this summer and it sounds like I’d need to jump online at 7 am exactly five months in advance to have a shot.”— Should National Parks Charge Foreign Tourists More?
“International tourism has been booming in the post-covid era, so extracting more money from people who fly across an ocean to see America’s most famous sights is basic Econ 101 price discrimination. In contrast, national parks are one of the last things American families can visit pretty cheap.”— Should National Parks Charge Foreign Tourists More?
Downfall
Growing questions surround the assumption as places like the Louvre, Versailles, and Venice adopted dual pricing despite media and union pushback. These examples proceeded as national policies, challenging the view of such fees as inherently discriminatory. [1] Global practices, including the Metropolitan Museum's pay-what-you-want for locals and Venice's levy on daytrippers, highlight dual pricing as a common tool for management, critics argue, undermining moral objections. [1] Economic perspectives further contest the idea, noting that the surcharge follows basic price discrimination principles, remains affordable for most foreigners, and spares legal immigrants. [2]
▶ Supporting Quotes (3)
“Dual pricing is already in place for various tourist tickets or fees across Europe and the rest of the world. ... The museum said the 45 per cent price hike from €22 to €32 is part of a national “differentiated pricing” policy announced early last year, which is coming into force across major cultural sites, including the Versailles Palace, the Paris Opera and the Sainte-Chapelle.”— Is Price Discrimination the Bad Kind of Discrimination?
“America’s top art museum, the Met in New York, charges $30 for everybody except residents of the state of New York and students attending college in New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut. They get to pay whatever they want. ... Venice’s daytripper levy, which has been enforced on weekends and busy days for the last few years, costs as much as €10 for tourists.”— Is Price Discrimination the Bad Kind of Discrimination?
“ChatGPT claims that the German family would pay $12,000 to $16,000 for their vacation in total, so the extra $400 would be about 3% more. Big deal.”— Should National Parks Charge Foreign Tourists More?
Sources
- [1]
-
[2]
Should National Parks Charge Foreign Tourists More?reputable_journalism