hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Prevents free National Park entry on a sitting President's birthday.
Rep. Amo (D-RI) and 7 co-sponsors in the House.
Introduced in House, awaiting committee action.
This bill, known as the 'PARK Act,' proposes that National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges cannot waive or reduce entrance fees to celebrate a sitting President's birthday, unless that birthday already falls on a federal holiday. It was introduced by Representative Gabe Amo, a Democrat from Rhode Island, along with several co-sponsors. The bill is currently in its very first stage, awaiting review by a House committee.
Introduced Jan 15, 2026
This bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources. For it to become law, it would need to pass through this committee, be voted on and passed by the full House, then go through a similar process in the Senate, and finally be signed by the President.
If this bill passes, you would no longer be able to visit National Parks or National Wildlife Refuges for free on the birthday of a sitting President, unless that day is already a recognized federal holiday. This means that if a President's birthday currently allows for free entry, that practice would stop, and standard fees would apply. The bill aims to standardize fee collection practices on these specific days across both park and refuge systems.
Supporters Say
Supporters might argue this bill ensures fair and consistent fee policies for all visitors and prevents potential politicization of park access.
Critics Say
Critics might argue it removes a small public perk or a way to encourage park visitation.
Proponents could suggest this bill brings greater consistency to how park fees are collected, ensuring that special fee waivers are tied to broader public holidays rather than individual presidential birthdays. They might also argue it prevents the appearance of using national parks for political commemoration. Conversely, those against the bill might see it as removing a small benefit to the public, potentially reducing access on certain days, or that it is an unnecessary regulation.