Have other controversial political figures appeared on government-issued park passes or passes for public lands?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Putting a sitting president’s portrait on the 2026 America the Beautiful national parks pass has sparked a federal lawsuit and widespread coverage; the Center for Biological Diversity says federal law (the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004) requires the pass to feature the annual contest winner and that the Interior Department replaced that Glacier National Park image with President Trump’s face [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows the Interior unveiled multiple new “commemorative” designs including Trump alongside George Washington, and legal experts and conservation groups call the move unprecedented and likely unlawful [4] [5] [6].
1. A rare precedent — presidents on park passes, and why this matters
Historically, America the Beautiful passes have featured winning photographs from a National Park Foundation contest depicting parks or wildlife; the complaint says every winning image in the prior 12 years was a photo taken on federal lands and the statute ties the pass design to that contest winner, so replacing the Glacier National Park photo with a presidential portrait is framed as a break with longstanding practice and potentially a statutory violation [2] [7] [8].
2. Who sued and on what legal ground
The Center for Biological Diversity filed suit in federal court in D.C., arguing the Interior Department and Park Service violated the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act by substituting a headshot for the contest-winning Glacier National Park photo and by creating separate, differently priced resident and nonresident passes — actions the group calls a “personal branding opportunity” and a bait‑and‑switch [1] [3] [7].
3. Government explanation and the “commemorative” framing
The Interior released an announcement and video describing “commemorative new designs” for 2026, showing a design that pairs President Trump’s official portrait with George Washington; Interior officials have described the graphics as modernized and patriotic, and the administration has tied other park policy changes (and free‑entry days) to its broader messaging, per coverage [4] [8] [9].
4. Legal experts and press reporting: “likely illegal” and unprecedented
Multiple outlets and park specialists say the redesign is likely unlawful under the act that created the pass; SFGate and The New York Times relay legal analysis and the suit’s assertion that featuring a sitting president is unprecedented and may contravene contest rules that bar controversial or heavily altered images [5] [2] [10].
5. Political reactions and framing from both sides
Conservation groups portray the move as partisan and an improper use of a federal asset, while the administration’s defenders call the changes celebratory and patriotic; the Center for Biological Diversity frames the action as turning the pass into a “partisan political platform,” and a White House spokesperson dismissed the lawsuit as frivolous in at least one outlet’s coverage [11] [8] [3].
6. Practical consequences: two passes and the nonresident/resident split
Reporting notes the Interior clarified the Trump design was for the annual resident pass while the nonresident pass would feature the original contest photo — a distinction the lawsuit contests and which adds a commercial dimension, since the administration also unveiled a higher-priced nonresident pass and revised fee structures in the same rollout [7] [3] [8].
7. Other historical or global comparisons — what the record shows (and doesn’t)
Available sources focus on this 2025–2026 controversy and legal challenge; they do not provide prior, comparable examples of other controversial political figures appearing on U.S. federal park passes, nor do they document a precedent of a sitting president’s visage taking the place of a contest photo on this pass [2] [4] [5]. International or state-level precedents are not mentioned in the provided reporting (not found in current reporting).
8. What to watch next
Coverage indicates the suit is active and centers on statutory interpretation of the 2004 law and the contest rules; follow-up items to monitor are the government’s legal defense, any administrative clarification or reversal (the Interior already issued some clarifications), and whether courts issue an injunction preventing sale or distribution of the challenged design [1] [7] [2].
Limitations: reporting in the provided sources documents the lawsuit, Interior announcements and expert commentary about legality, but does not explore prior historical examples beyond noting the change is unprecedented for this pass; available sources do not mention other instances of similarly controversial political figures on federal park passes (not found in current reporting) [2] [5] [4].