A bipartisan coalition of California lawmakers demanded that the Trump administration “halt and reject” a proposed sale of part of Yosemite National Park to a private developer in a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on Wednesday.
The letter followed reporting by NOTUS that revealed National Park Service staff in California and Washington, D.C., have been trying to arrange a land exchange between a Nevada-based company and the federal government.
In the letter, prominent Republicans and Democrats in California’s state legislature told Burgum that “Yosemite is not a subdivision, and it is not for sale.” The lawmakers, led by Republican Assemblymember Greg Wallis, cited the Yosemite Grant Act, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1864, as the first time the federal government set aside scenic land for preservation and public use.
“The existence of a land-exchange mechanism does not make this an appropriate use of it. Protecting Yosemite requires no creative interpretation of federal law, just the judgment to say No,” the lawmakers said in the letter.
Trending
Signatories to the letter included both the California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Republican Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones and totaled more than half of the California state legislature.
Since spring 2025, the Interior Department has been working with the real estate developer and investment firm Kingsbarn Realty Capital on a deal that would allow it to build a short road on Yosemite land, which would give the property rare private access to the park.
Kingsbarn, through a web of limited liability companies, owns an 83-acre parcel of land on the western edge of Yosemite’s boundaries. Currently the property’s only access to the National Park’s main attractions is via a long and circuitous road through Forest Service lands.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Jeff Pori, Kingsbarn CEO, said his company plans to build short-term rentals on the property. Pori confirmed NOTUS’ reporting that he is pursuing a land-exchange agreement with the Park Service and that the deal is currently waiting for a land appraisal.
Former park officials, the park’s staff union and national park advocates have led a chorus of opposition to this proposed plan.
The Interior Department has maintained that no final decisions have been made. Any deal “would be subject to all applicable federal laws, regulations, and Departmental policies, including required environmental review and public notification processes,” a spokesperson for the National Park Service said.
Author
