Trump administration looks to give a swath of Yosemite park to developer

The Trump administration has proposed trading away a small parcel of land in Yosemite National Park in California so a private developer can gain access to the park, according to federal officials and documents reviewed by The New York Times.

The potential deal has alarmed conservationists and former National Park Service officials, who say that Yosemite, the crown jewel of the nation’s park system, should be off-limits to development.

The proposal, details of which were first reported by the news outlet NOTUS, calls for transferring a small parcel just inside the western boundary of Yosemite to a company controlled by Kingsbarn Realty Capital, a real estate private equity firm. Kingsbarn wants to build a road and develop two 40-acre parcels it owns near the park, according to documents submitted to Congress this year and reviewed by the Times.

In exchange, the company would purchase land of equivalent value, either near Yosemite or elsewhere in California, and hand it over to the park service, the documents show.

“This is so ridiculous, it makes you sick,” said Don Neubacher, a former supervisor at Yosemite who is now on the executive council of the nonprofit Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks. Neubacher said a similar proposal had been raised in the early 2000s. It was rejected, first by the park service and later in court.

Kingsbarn bought the two parcels near the park in early 2024 for $4 million through a limited liability corporation called Sanctuary at Yosemite, property records show. The CEO of Kingsbarn, Jeff Pori, made regular small-dollar donations to President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign, contributing more than $4,000, according to campaign finance records.

Representatives for Kingsbarn did not respond to a request for comment.

Aubrie Spady, a spokesperson for the Interior Department, the parent agency of the park service, said in a statement that no final decision had been made.

“Any land exchange or access proposal involving National Park Service lands would be subject to all applicable federal laws, regulations and departmental policies, including required environmental review and public notification processes,” Spady said.

Yosemite is known for its enormous waterfalls, towering sequoias and glacier-carved monoliths like Half Dome and El Capitan. It is one of the country’s most visited national parks, and it has been even more crowded than usual after the Trump administration eliminated a summer reservation system.

Political appointees at the Interior Department have discussed the proposed land exchange in Yosemite for more than a year, calling it a top priority, according to two former park service officials who asked to remain anonymous because they feared retaliation.

The Interior Department notified Congress this year that it was considering paying for any costs related to the exchange via the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That drew criticism from Democrats, who said the fund was intended to pay for conservation programs on public lands.

California’s two Democratic senators, Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, both decried the proposal and said they were working with the Senate Appropriations Committee to try to block it.

“This is the most corrupt administration in history,” Padilla said in a statement. “The Land and Water Conservation Fund exists to acquire land and interests in land in order to safeguard natural areas, water resources and cultural heritage — and to provide recreation opportunities for all Americans.”

Cicely Muldoon, who was the superintendent of Yosemite from 2020 until her retirement in February 2025, said that land exchanges were supposed to provide the park service with a net benefit, such as additional wildlife habitat. She said the benefit of this one for the public was unclear.

Muldoon also raised concern about the precedent the deal could set for more than 400 other national parks and historic sites around the country.

“Yosemite is kind of a bellwether for the national parks,” she said. “If this can happen in Yosemite, it can really happen anywhere in the national park system.”

The land at issue has been embroiled in development disputes since the late 1990s, when Lewis Geyser, a developer from Solvang, Calif., purchased a rugged stretch of forest on Yosemite’s western border and proposed building a resort called Hazel Green Ranch.

The proposed project was near the Big Oak Flat entrance to Yosemite on California state Route 120. Initially, park officials sought to work with the owner to create an off-site lot so that visitors could leave their cars outside Yosemite and take a shuttle into the park grounds. That plan fell apart.

Geyser then sought an easement through a quarter-mile section of park property that would provide easier access to the park from his land, according to court records in the long litigation that followed.

After the park refused, he sued in 2007. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups joined the federal government in opposing the easement, and the litigation dragged out until 2012, when a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled against the developer.

“It was a good ending, and we all thought it was dead,” said Neubacher, who was the superintendent at Yosemite from 2010 until 2016. “Yosemite is a spectacular cathedral, but if it is to be preserved for future generations, we can’t just keep packing cars on the road.”

After Kingsbarn bought the land in 2024, however, the firm sought to reopen discussions about a private road and was told that the park service could not legally permit the access, Muldoon said.

By spring 2025, the department was revisiting the request from Kingsbarn, according to current and former federal officials with knowledge of the conversations, and word circulated that the proposal was a priority for political appointees in Washington, D.C.