Is trumps picture on the national park pass?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Yes — the Department of the Interior rolled out new 2026 “America the Beautiful” annual pass designs that include portraits of President Donald Trump (and George Washington), and conservation groups have filed lawsuits seeking to stop the change because they say federal law requires the pass to use the contest-winning landscape photo (Glacier National Park) and that the redesign is unlawful [1] [2] [3].
1. What changed and why people noticed
The Interior announced a modernization of national park access that includes new digital passes, new artwork and a resident/nonresident pricing structure; among the new designs are commemorative portraits that place Trump (and Washington) on some resident passes — a break from the longstanding practice of featuring landscape or wildlife photography [1] [4] [2].
2. Who says Trump’s face is on the pass — and what they claim
Multiple outlets and the Department of the Interior itself show the new pass artwork includes Trump’s portrait; People, CNN and DOI material describe the redesign and the inclusion of presidential portraits as part of the 2026 rollout [4] [2] [1].
3. The legal challenge: what the lawsuit argues
The Center for Biological Diversity filed suit in federal court to prevent the DOI from replacing the Glacier National Park photo — the winner of the National Park Foundation’s photo contest — with a close-up of the president’s face. The suit contends the America the Beautiful Act and related statutory rules require the pass to carry the contest-winning image and prohibit creating unauthorized pass categories; the group calls the change an “ego-driven” politicization of public lands [5] [6] [2] [7].
4. How news organizations and legal experts characterize the move
Reuters, The Washington Post, CNN, Newsweek and SFGATE report the redesign and the lawsuit. Several legal commentators quoted in coverage say the redesign likely conflicts with the statute that created the pass and that overturning it would probably require litigation; the Center’s press statement framed the replacement as an improper personal branding of national parks [3] [6] [2] [8] [7].
5. Administration rationale and policy framing
DOI’s public materials present the changes as a modernization: digital validation, updated artwork, and an “America-first” pricing approach that lowers resident costs and increases nonresident fees. The department says the package makes access more efficient and affordable for U.S. residents while enhancing digital convenience [1] [9].
6. The practical wrinkle for shoppers who want to avoid the new design
Coverage notes a simple workaround: passes purchased before the redesign’s January 1, 2026 rollout — the current $80 2025 design — remain valid for 12 months, so buying now buys you a 2025-style pass that lasts through 2026, avoiding the Trump-design pass until a later renewal [10] [11].
7. Broader context and competing perspectives
Conservationists and career park staffers criticize the move as politicizing nonpartisan public resources and potentially undermining park support; DOI presents the change as modernization and taxpayer-focused pricing. Some outlets emphasize aesthetic and statutory objections, while the department emphasizes administrative improvements and patriotic commemoration for the 250th anniversary [2] [1] [12] [7].
8. What the reporting does not resolve yet
Available sources document the DOI announcement and the Center for Biological Diversity’s lawsuit, and cite legal opinions calling the redesign likely illegal; they do not contain a court decision resolving the suit or an official DOI retraction or modification of the design as of these reports [5] [3] [2]. Available sources do not mention a final judicial ruling or whether DOI will delay sales of the new design pending litigation.
9. Why this matters beyond imagery
This controversy touches statutory limits on agency design choices, the politicization of federal programs, and funding flows (resident vs. nonresident fees) that finance park maintenance. It also illustrates how a seemingly small graphic choice can trigger legal, political and cultural disputes over stewardship of public lands [7] [1] [3].
If you want, I can assemble the specific legal claims from the complaint next — or gather the DOI’s full press release language and the Center for Biological Diversity’s filing text so you can compare them line‑by‑line (sources cited above).