The U.S. Constitution prohibits export tariffs. Specifically, Article I, Section 9 says that “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.”
Therefore, the differentially high prices charged to foreigners to buy this particular offering of U.S. tourism services are export tariffs.
I don’t doubt that every court in the land would find a way to prevent these differentially higher park-admission prices charged to foreigners from being classified as Constitutionally relevant export duties. The courts would likely reach such a finding by declaring that tourism services, being services rather than something tangible, aren’t an “Article exported.” The fact that this is a distinction with no economic difference – a dollar’s worth of American-supplied tourism enjoyed by a foreigner has exactly the same value as does a dollar’s worth of American-supplied steel consumed by a foreigner – would not begin to be sufficient to sway a court.
Nor do I doubt that such differential pricing of admission to national parks might be a good idea if the goal is to price-discriminate in a way that increases the revenue earned by national parks. But, on the economic substance of the matter, these differentially higher park-admission fees are export tariffs. And by reducing the quantity of U.S. tourism services demanded by foreigners, these U.S.-imposed tariffs on exports of American tourism services increase foreigners’ demands for tourism outside of the U.S.
Put differently – and certainly contrary to Donald Trump’s intention – the U.S. government’s decision to raise the prices that foreigners pay for admission to U.S. national parks protects tourism industries in other countries no less than if foreign governments were to impose protective tariffs on their citizens’ purchases of American tourism.
