News
Yosemite, again in corporate crosshairs, embodies the long war over US national park privatization
Yosemite, again in corporate crosshairs, embodies the long war over US national park privatization. Originally published by The Conversation.
By Michael Childers, Associate Professor of History, Colorado State University · 2026-09-02T20:18:02.072Z
Yosemite National Park is home to three groves of massive ancient sequoia trees. Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images Reports that the Trump administration is working to transfer part of Yosemite National Park https://www.notus.org/agencies/trump administration yosemite private developer deal to a private land developer have heightened concerns among park advocates and the public https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/12/trump is laying the groundwork to privatize americas national parks about privatization of public land. The proposed deal, which a government spokesperson said has not been finalized https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/28/us/trump administration yosemite private developer.html , would involve a land swap: The government would give the developer a small area of the park’s land on which to build a private access road https://www.notus.org/agencies/trump administration yosemite private developer deal between a proposed resort and the park itself. In exchange, the developer would buy land of similar value near the park, or elsewhere in California, and transfer that land to federal ownership. Environmental advocates and park staff have worried for more than a year that the administration’s cuts to the National Park Service’s budget https://www.deseret.com/the west/2025/07/14/national park service budget staffing cuts doge doug burgum/ and staffing would lead to further privatization of the national parks’ land and business operations. The nation has a long history of similar efforts, including a wildly unpopular 1980 attempt by Reagan administration Interior Secretary James Watt to promote development and expand private concessions https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online books/runte1/epilogue.htm in the parks. But debate over using public national park land for private profit dates back more than a century before that. As I explain in my book, “ The Mountains Are Calling: Tourists and the Unmaking of Yosemite National Park https://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/nebraska/9781496239587/the mountains are calling/ ,” no park has played a more central role in that debate than Yosemite, in California. Early concerns In early 1864, Central American Steamship Transit Company representative Israel Ward Raymond wrote a letter to John Conness, a U.S. senator from California, urging the government to move swiftly https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online books/runte2/chap2.htm to preserve the Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove of giant sequoia trees to prevent them from falling into private hands. Five months later, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Yosemite Grant Act, ceding the valley and the grove to the state of California, “upon the express conditions that the premises shall be held for public use, resort, and recreation https://www.loc.gov/item/today in history/june 30/ .” This was years before Yellowstone became the first federal land designated a national park https://www.archives.gov/milestone documents/act establishing yellowstone national park in 1872.
For centuries, the natural beauty of the Yosemite Valley has impressed visitors. Sepia Times/Universal Images Group via Getty Images Controversy arose quickly at Yosemite. Two men – James Lamon and James Hutchings – had claimed land in the valley https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online books/runte2/chap2.htm before the federal government gave it to California. Both began commercial operations, Lamon growing cash crops https://home.nps.gov/yose/blogs/the first pioneer settler of yosemite valley.htm and Hutchings operating a hotel https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/historyculture/hutchings.htm . California said their businesses threatened the state’s ability to develop roads and trails in Yosemite by competing for tourist dollars. A legal battle ensued and was not resolved until an 1872 U.S. Supreme Court ruling https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/82/77/ found that the men’s land claims had not been fully validated according to the procedures of the time. The California legislature paid both men compensation for their land https://home.nps.gov/yose/blogs/the first pioneer settler of yosemite valley.htm , and both left the park. In 1890, neighboring parts of the Yosemite area https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/news/yosemite national park commemorates its 125th anniversary.htm?fullweb=1 became America’s third national park – and in 1906, the federal government again took possession of the Yosemite Valley itself and the Mariposa Grove, specifically to incorporate them into an expansion of the national park https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/historyculture/thenandnow.htm . Development rights Yet, as my research has found, the role of private interests in the park remained unsolved. Private companies under contract to the National Park Service have long provided needed amenities such as lodging and food https://www.nps.gov/subjects/concessions/index.htm within the national parks. But questions over what is acceptable in national parks in the pursuit of profit have shaped Yosemite’s history for generations. In 1925, I found, the question centered on the right to build the first gas station inside the park, in Yosemite Valley. Two private businesses, the Curry Camping Company and the Yosemite National Park Company, had long competed for tourist dollars within the park. Each wanted to build a gas station to boost profits.
The Ahwahnee is a privately run hotel inside Yosemite National Park. George Rose/Getty Images Frustrated over the need to decide https://npshistory.com/publications/yose/camp curry clr.pdf page=187 , National Park Service Director Horace Albright ordered the rival firms to simplify management of the park’s concessions. The companies merged, and the newly formed Yosemite Park and Curry Company was granted the exclusive rights to run lodges, restaurants and other facilities within the park, including the new gas station. But as I found in my research, the park service and the concessions company did not always see eye to eye on the purpose of the park. The conflict between profit and preservation is perhaps most clearly illustrated by the construction of a ski area within the park in the early 1930s. The park service initially opposed the development of Badger Pass Ski Area as not conducive to the national park ideal https://www.jstor.org/stable/26555031 , but the Yosemite Park and Curry Company insisted it was key to boosting winter use of the park. In 1973, the Music Corporation of America, an entertainment conglomerate, bought the Yosemite Park and Curry Company. The company already had a tourist attraction operating near Hollywood, where visitors could pay to tour movie sets https://www.latimes.com/archives/la xpm 1990 11 27 fi 5451 story.html , but had not yet changed its name to Universal Studios or launched major theme parks in Florida and California. Its purchase of the park’s concessions set off a firestorm of controversy https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/1974 october over fears of turning Yosemite into a theme park. That didn’t happen, but annual park visitor numbers climbed from 2.5 million to 3.8 million https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Annual%20Park%20Recreation%20Visitation%20Graph%20 1904%20 %20Last%20Calendar%20Year ?Park=YOSE over the 20 years MCA ran the concessions, which sparked concerns about development and overcrowding in the park. Conservationists argued the park service had allowed the corporate giant to promote and develop the park in ways that threatened the very aspects of the park most people came to enjoy https://www.jstor.org/stable/26555031 . With three restaurants, two service stations with a total of 15 gas pumps, two cafeterias, two grocery stores, seven souvenir shops, a delicatessen, a bank, a skating rink, three swimming pools, a golf course, two tennis courts, kennels, a barbershop, a beauty shop, Badger Pass Ski Area and three lodges, the Yosemite Valley was a busy commercial district https://www.jstor.org/stable/26555031 . Critics argued that such development contradicted the park service’s mandate to leave national parks unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/index.htm .
Crowds gather at some of Yosemite’s most popular sites, such as the California Tunnel Tree. David McNew/AFP via Getty Images Who owns the names? Falling profits and consolidation within the music industry led MCA to sell its concessions rights in Yosemite in 1993. The Delaware North Companies, a global hospitality corporation, took over and ran the park’s concessions https://www.kvpr.org/business economy/2015 06 17/longtime yosemite concessionaire is out as nps selects aramark until 2016, when it sold the rights to Aramark. But in that sale, the question of public resources and private profits arose again. Delaware North demanded $51 million in compensation https://niagarafallsreporter.com/delaware north loses yosemite contract can niagara falls state park be next 2/ for Aramark continuing to use the names of several historic properties within the park, such as the Ahwahnee, a hotel https://www.nps.gov/places/000/the ahwahnee.htm , and Curry Village https://www.nps.gov/places/000/curry village.htm , another group of visitor accommodations. The company claimed those names were a part of its assets under its contract with the park service. The park service rejected the claim, saying the names, which dated back more than a century, belonged to the American people. But to avoid legal problems during the transition, the agency temporarily renamed several sites https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/news/yosemite national park to change historic property names.htm , including calling the Ahwahnee the Majestic Yosemite Hotel and changing Curry Village to Half Dome Village. Public outrage erupted, denouncing the claim by Delaware North as commercial overreach https://boomcalifornia.org/2016/06/16/yosemite by any name is still the peoples park/ that threatened to distort Yosemite’s heritage. In 2019, the park service and Aramark agreed to pay Delaware North a total of $12 million https://www.npr.org/2019/07/16/742081777/yosemite hotels get their historic names back after trademark dispute to settle the dispute, and the original names were restored. Renewed interest in commercial efforts In June 2025, Yosemite again took center stage in the dispute over the role of federal funding versus private interests at the start of the second Trump administration when a group of climbers unfurled an American flag upside down off El Capitan https://www.cpr.org/2025/06/12/trump budget impact national parks concerns/ in protest of the administration’s cuts in personnel and slashing of the park service’s budget. Conservationists, including former National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis, argued that by defunding the park service https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/05/04/trump budget proposal cuts to parks/83428514007/ and laying off as much as a quarter of its workforce https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/03/us/politics/park service staffing.html , the Trump administration was “ laying the groundwork to privatize” the national parks https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/12/trump is laying the groundwork to privatize americas national parks by allowing corporate interests more access to public lands https://grist.org/climate/the trump administrations push to privatize us public lands/ . Those concerns echo ones raised during the first Trump administration, when the White House argued privatization would better serve the American public https://perma.cc/JQN5 Z8TL by improving visitor experiences and saving federal dollars. Members of Congress and former park service officials say the reported effort in 2026 to turn over park land to a private owner would be a major blow to federal efforts to protect parks https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/28/us/trump administration yosemite private developer.html and conserve land. Whichever side prevails in the short term, the debate over the role of private interests within national parks like Yosemite will undoubtedly continue. This article contains material previously published https://theconversation.com/yosemite embodies the long war over us national park privatization 261133 July 31, 2025.
Michael Childers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.