The debate over whether public national park land should be turned over to private interests for profit has a long history in the United States, stretching back more than a century. Recently, concerns have resurfaced after reports that the Trump administration is considering transferring a small portion of Yosemite National Park to a private developer. This proposed deal, which has not yet been finalized, would involve a land swap: the government would give the developer a small area of park land to build a private access road between a resort and the park. In return, the developer would purchase land of similar value near the park or elsewhere in California and transfer it to federal ownership. Environmental advocates and park staff have raised alarms for over a year, linking the administration’s cuts to the National Park Service’s budget and staffing with an increased risk of privatization. Similar concerns have emerged before, such as during the 1980s when then-Interior Secretary James Watt proposed expanding private concessions in national parks. However, the issue of using public park land for private profit predates even that, with roots in the 19th century. The origins of Yosemite National Park’s public status can be traced back to 1864, when a letter from Israel Ward Raymond, a representative of the Central American Steamship Transit Company, urged California Senator John Conness to preserve Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove of giant sequoias. President Abraham Lincoln signed the Yosemite Grant Act in 1864, transferring the land to California with the condition that it be used for public recreation. This was more than a decade before Yellowstone became the first national park in 1872. Despite these early protections, Yosemite faced immediate controversy. Two men, James Lamon and James Hutchings, had claimed land in the valley before it was transferred to California. They operated businesses that competed with state efforts to develop the park. A legal battle ensued, and in 1872, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that their claims were not fully valid. California compensated them and they eventually left the park. In 1890, parts of Yosemite became the third national park, and in 1906, the federal government took over Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove to expand the national park system. However, private interests continued to play a role in the park’s operations. Over the years, the tension between profit and preservation has shaped Yosemite’s history. In 1925, the National Park Service faced a dispute over the first gas station in Yosemite Valley, which led to a merger of two private companies that later formed the Yosemite Park and Curry Company. This company managed lodges, restaurants, and other facilities within the park. In the 1930s, the company pushed for the construction of a ski area, which the park service initially opposed but eventually allowed. Later, in 1973, the Music Corporation of America (MCA) bought the company, sparking fears that Yosemite might become a theme park. Although that didn’t happen, the increase in visitors and commercial development raised concerns about the park’s conservation. The issue of private interests in national parks resurfaced again in 2025 when climbers unfurled an upside-down American flag on El Capitan to protest the Trump administration’s budget cuts to the National Park Service. Conservationists argued that reducing staffing and funding was a step toward privatizing the parks. These concerns are not new, as similar arguments were made during the first Trump administration. The debate over federal funding versus private interests in national parks like Yosemite is likely to continue, reflecting an ongoing struggle between preservation and commercialization.