A view of the Yosemite Valley over the Merced River: Glynn Wilson
Staff Report –
The Trump administration has proposed trading away a parcel of land in Yosemite National Park in California so a private developer who supported Trump’s campaign for president can gain access to the park, according to federal officials and documents reviewed and reported 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.
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 chief executive of Kingsbarn, Jeff Pori, made regular small-dollar donations to President 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 spokeswoman 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,” Ms. Spady said.
Yosemite is known for its magnificent waterfalls, towering sequoia trees and glacier-carved granite monoliths like Half Dome and El Capitan.
Half Dome in Yosemite Valley: By Glynn Wilson
The face of El Capitan, the world’s largest granite monolith, rising almost 3,000 feet above Yosemite Valley: Glynn Wilson
It is one of the country’s most visited national parks, and it has been even more crowded than usual on weekends and holidays this summer after the Trump administration eliminated a summer reservation system and waved the entry fee on Trump’s birthday and the Fourth of July Holiday, taking a free day away from the Martin Luther King National Holiday.
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 for fear of 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 lambasted the proposal and said they were working with the Senate Appropriations Committee 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.”
“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,” Padilla said. “Projects should be chosen on merit, not on an applicant’s connections to high-ranking Trump Administration officials.”
“Yosemite is one of California’s natural wonders and must be protected from further development,” said Sen. Adam Schiff. “The courts struck this project down once, but this administration appears hellbent on moving forward in the face of opposition from the public, Congress and the courts. But the only thing the administration cares about is whether there is money involved. We will fight this again.”
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, just 30 miles from Coulterville on the original John Muir route into Yosemite Valley.
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, the Times reports.
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,” Neubacher said. He 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,” he said.
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.
Then Trump took office again.
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.
Activists are already gearing up for a fight to stop this corruption from happening. If the Department of Interior insists on doing Trump’s bidding and making this land exchange, it is likely that it will face a legal challenge from environmental and conservation groups.
The National Parks Conservation Association said it strongly opposes the plan.
“After a century of protecting Yosemite, the National Park Service is now working in overdrive to turn over land to a private developer in a secretive, backroom deal,” said Mark Rose, the group’s Sierra Nevada program manager. “This is an attack on the American people that own this national park. It would also be unlawful and a court previously rejected a road development proposal.”
___
If you support truth in reporting with no paywall, and fearless writing with no popup ads or sponsored content, consider making a contribution today with GoFundMe or Patreon or PayPal.
