Is MLK day being removed as a free park day and nothing in its place celebrating all races?

1. What changed — the facts on fee-free days

The National Park Service’s updated calendar for 2026 removes MLK Day and Juneteenth from the roster of fee-free dates that applied in prior years and adds June 14 — President Trump’s birthday, which coincides with Flag Day — as a free-entry day for U.S. residents ^{[5] [1]}. Multiple outlets report the schedule covers 116 parks that charge entrance fees and that the new policy takes effect Jan. 1, 2026 ^{[6] [2]}.

2. Who is affected and how

Under the new framework, the free-entry benefit will “only apply to US citizens and residents,” according to reporting about the Interior’s announcement, and the policy change also accompanies higher admission fees for international visitors — a shift the agency says is intended to prioritize U.S. families ^{[3] [6]}. The immediate practical effect is that people who previously relied on MLK Day or Juneteenth for free access will now face normal entrance fees at many parks on those dates ^{[2] [4]}.

3. Why this matters: symbolism and criticism

Removing MLK Day and Juneteenth — federal holidays that mark civil-rights milestones — from free-entry days drew quick criticism from civil-rights leaders and some lawmakers. Commentary cited in the reporting characterizes the move as prioritizing “patriotic” holidays and elevating Trump’s birthday while eliminating benefits tied to Black history and civil-rights commemoration ^{[1] [7]}. Critics framed the change as politically charged; defenders in the administration framed it as reorienting benefits toward American residents ^{[8] [5]}.

4. Administration rationale and policy framing

Reporting attributes the changes to Department of the Interior decisions tied to a broader push to make parks “more affordable for American citizens” and to charge higher fees for foreign visitors, described in administration statements and related executive orders, including one called “Making America Beautiful Again” ^[8]. The Interior and National Park Service presented the updated list as a set of “resident-only patriotic fee-free days” for 2026 ^{[9] [5]}.

5. Competing perspectives in the coverage

Mainstream outlets (AP, NBC, Axios, Newsweek) consistently report the same core facts — MLK Day and Juneteenth removed, Trump’s birthday added — and note ensuing backlash from civil-rights voices and some Democrats ^{[2] [3] [5] [9]}. Coverage also includes administration framing that the changes prioritize U.S. residents and patriotic observances; those two narratives — civic re-prioritization vs. erasure of civil-rights recognition — coexist in reporting ^{[8] [1]}.

6. What reporting does not say

Available sources do not mention any replacement program that celebrates “all races” in place of MLK Day. They do not report that another holiday or event explicitly substitutes MLK Day’s symbolic role with a multiracial commemoration administered by the Park Service (not found in current reporting). Sources do not document internal National Park Service deliberations beyond public statements about resident-focused “patriotic” days ^{[5] [8]}.

7. Political and civic context to watch

This change sits at the intersection of culture-war debates over how public institutions commemorate history and whose holidays receive preferential benefits. Coverage ties the decision to the broader Trump administration priorities on public lands and to an executive policy thrust going back to mid‑2025; expect further congressional questions, statements from civil-rights groups, and possible administrative clarifications or reversals as pressure mounts ^{[8] [4]}.

8. Bottom line for readers

The concrete answer to your question: MLK Day is being removed as a free national-park day for 2026, with no reported Park Service program in the provided coverage that replaces it with a new “celebrating all races” holiday; instead, the list was retooled toward “patriotic” resident-only dates and includes President Trump’s birthday ^{[2] [5] [3]}. Sources document strong opposition from civil-rights leaders and lawmakers and trace the change to Interior-level policy priorities ^{[7] [4]}.