Hotel stays in Hawaii will be getting a little more expensive starting in 2026, thanks to the introduction of a first-of-its-kind tax.
In this post:
Hawaii hotel taxes increasing to 11% as of January 2026
Lawmakers in Hawaii have passed a bill to raise the tax on hotel stays and other vacation rentals, specifically to fund efforts to fight climate change. Senate Bill 1396 was passed on April 25, 2025, and is expected to be signed into law by Governor Josh Green.
As of January 2026, the tax on hotels and other accommodations will increase by 1.75%, from 9.25% to 11%. The expectation is that this will generate between $85 million and $100 million per year in additional revenue. Hawaii hasn’t otherwise increased taxes on hotel stays since 2010.
In the past, there was talk of introducing a $50 per person fee for visitors to enter the state. However, that never passed, as lawmakers were concerned it would violate the Constitution’s right to free travel. So this agreement is considered to be a compromise.
Here’s how Representative Adrian Tam described this new bill:
“Our residents and communities deserve to be protected. As we continue to invite visitors to Hawaii to share the beauty of this land, this bill is a huge step in ensuring adequate funding is set aside to steward and protect our delicate ecosystems for visitors, our constituents and communities for generations to come.”
How will the additional hotel tax revenue be used?
Funding from this tax will be used to address the impacts of climate change on the state, and mitigate further impacts, by authorizing the funding of resiliency projects, and establishing the climate mitigation and resiliency special fund. Funding will also be used to establish the economic development and revitalization special fund.
Here’s how the bill describes the intent behind this increased tax:
The legislature finds that Hawaii is experiencing a climate emergency. The effects of climate change, such as rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, and increasingly destructive and deadly weather events, are felt across the island chain. These impacts threaten not only our vibrant ecosystems but, as actors within these ecosystems, the people of Hawaii as well. To ensure the health, safety, and wellbeing of Hawaii’s lands, waters, and people, successful mitigation of and adaptation to climate change is imperative.
The legislature further finds that given the scale and impact of the climate emergency, the State must invest in bold actions to prepare for, mitigate, and adapt to climate change, including resiliency to intensifying natural disasters. A coordinated approach is necessary, and the department of defense, charged with protecting the safety and welfare of the people of Hawaii and the State’s lead for hazard mitigation and disaster readiness, is prepared to assume this responsibility, in coordination with the departments of business, economic development, and tourism; land and natural resources; and transportation, as well as the community, to provide for the safety, security, and wellbeing of Hawaii’s places and people.
This is the first time that we’re seeing a US state introduce a hotel tax specifically to address climate change.
Bottom line
As of January 2026, hotel taxes in Hawaii will be increasing, from 9.25% to 11%. That 1.75% tax increase is being used specifically to address the impacts of climate change, by setting up new funds. The expectation is that this will lead to an incremental $85-100 million per year in revenue for the government.
Ultimately tourism is a balance, and needs to serve not just visitors, but also locals. Assuming the money is used to make life better for Hawaiians, then I’d say it’s fair enough.
What do you make of Hawaii’s new hotel climate tax?
I feel the point that gets missed is it doesn’t really matter what someone says a tax is for. It could be the most worthy tax in existence, all people care about is the final price, and if that’s too high people will pick another destination. It’s easy to imagine an increase like this pushing hotels from $298/night to $300/night, and some people would balk at the latter.
One less $24 Mai Tai on holiday will cover this tax increase.
Hopefully it deters all the volk getting their reich's panties in a twist about it. Too much to hope for.
They should have made it 10%, the same as the biblical instructed tithe for Christians. That way the religion of climate change could be on par in Hawaii.
As a practical matter, a $2000 stay will cost $24 more. Who cares? If the legislature called it "we just want more revenue" tax, it is their prerogative. If someone doesn't like it, don't go. And, don't go to NYC or Venice or Barcelona or fill in the blank. Some people complain just to complain.
And some people just pay up just to remain brainwashed.
Yet another hypocrite greenwashing policy.
Surely all that meth/ice smoke from local Hawaiians and imported bums is GREAT for the environment. Why don't they start their.
*there
WOW the youngest state is solving climate change!!!!!!!
It would sound less pathetic if you called it pooping on island tax than fighting climate change. Why don't those hypocrites introduce a world peace tax or ending famine tax.
Science says the sun's temperature will drop by a few degrees if we pay more taxes. Everyone do your part !!!!
Hope they use the money raised to close the oil powered power stations and go fully renewable.
Fusion is just being commercialized. The tax could fund the conversion.
Ben, just FYI... "Hawaiian" implies a person of native Hawaiian ancestry. The correct term for a person who lives in the state of Hawaii is "Hawaii Resident."
Go away
If only Native Hawaiians can be called Hawaiians, does that mean people of African or Asian ancestry that are UK or French citizens cannot be called British or French? I’m curious.
That's not a good comparison. American states are not nationalities, so your comparison is flawed.
Hawaiian is a race so the verbiage is necessary to differentiate someone of Hawaiian ancestry vs being from Hawaii.
I'm with Miguel.
As a British citizen of Ghanaian ancestry this is true! I am British not a “British Resident”. Same goes for any individual in Hawaii.
Oh well, not a big change. My trip is happening regardless, and maybe principle will keep some of the climate complainers away.
So incredibly sad that had we had a perfect opportunity to build out greener and more efficient transportation alternatives and rework the zoning codes here in the US back in the '70s during the oil crisis, but the oil companies won out. VMT and suburban sprawl has skyrocketed, and now the bill is finally coming due.
"The bill is finally coming due."
I'm curious what you think the impact of these taxes will be. Do you think states and localities are going to use this (rather meager) revenue to totally transform transportation and energy infrastructure?
Also, what do you think will happen if they don't? The reality is that none of the climate apocalypse scenarios has come close to materializing.
Finally, if you're so concerned about climate change, what are you...
"The bill is finally coming due."
I'm curious what you think the impact of these taxes will be. Do you think states and localities are going to use this (rather meager) revenue to totally transform transportation and energy infrastructure?
Also, what do you think will happen if they don't? The reality is that none of the climate apocalypse scenarios has come close to materializing.
Finally, if you're so concerned about climate change, what are you prepared to give up to stop it? Really, you shouldn't be traveling by airplane, let alone leaving your hometown if you think it's such an existential crisis.
Trufax makes a valid point.
@Trufax
I don't think Hawaii alone will materially be able to do anything with their tax, other than maybe implement more effective mass transit on their islands (which to be clear would help). Beyond that, it's a line item to hopefully make people think when they pay the bill. At the end of the day, this has to be addressed at a higher level than a single state in the US. It needs to...
@Trufax
I don't think Hawaii alone will materially be able to do anything with their tax, other than maybe implement more effective mass transit on their islands (which to be clear would help). Beyond that, it's a line item to hopefully make people think when they pay the bill. At the end of the day, this has to be addressed at a higher level than a single state in the US. It needs to be addressed in the same way we addressed the ozone layer degradation with the Montreal Protocol. The Paris Accords were supposed to do this but arguably world action on the ozone layer (and Y2K as another example) was so successful that the layman today doesn't think it was an actual issue. Fact is, both were, but they didn't become disasters because we noticed the problem ahead of time and collectively took steps to resolve it.
The biggest driver of CO2 emissions in the United States (and also plastic particles in our water and food) comes from automobiles and suburban sprawl. Despite being only a population of 340m people, the US emits more CO2 than India, with 1.4 billion people, and more per capita than China with their 1.4 billion people. This is because single-family tract housing on the periphery of cities makes mass transit politically and fiscally impossible. This then passes the cost of transportation to the individual instead of the state by forcing people to own cars to participate in society in any measure. Likewise, single-family homes are less energy efficient than any form of multi-family dwellings, requiring more energy to heat or cool, meaning more oil and coal burned in power stations for climate control. More roads to connect them all, more concrete and plastic to provide the sewers and power lines. Especially in terms of microplastics, we're crapping where we drink, since most microplastics in the environment come from vehicle tires. Just think. Every sip of water you take, you're drinking your own tire detritus.
As for what I personally am doing? I bought a condo closer to the city to reduce the need to take car trips (I walk to restaurants, I walk to get groceries, I walk the dogs to the park, I walk to transit to go to the airport, etc). I bought a 50mpg hybrid car to reduce tailpipe emissions and gas consumption for the car trips I do have to take. And my condo requires far less energy to heat and cool. That all being said, it's not easy to live completely car-free in the US because the handful of areas where that's actually possible tend to be prohibitively expensive (thanks to demand because people WANT to live in such areas). I'm not worried about commercial air travel because that makes up such a small segment of total emissions as to be insignificant in the grand scheme of things. It's 2.5% of global CO2 emissions, whereas if the we in the USA alone cut our emissions by 1/4 we'd cut global CO2 emissions by 3%.
Would Honolulu's light rail have been less of a disaster if they tried to build it back in the 70's?
@Andrew H.
I'd say most likely yes. In the 1970s we hadn't yet completely spun off institutional public works knowledge from governments to private companies, and in the '70s Honolulu's population was only 630k~ as opposed to 900k~ in 2008 when the light rail was finally approved. Lower property values, the city is less built up, easier to acquire land, and better state capacity to manage and build infrastructure. Hell, you probably could have...
@Andrew H.
I'd say most likely yes. In the 1970s we hadn't yet completely spun off institutional public works knowledge from governments to private companies, and in the '70s Honolulu's population was only 630k~ as opposed to 900k~ in 2008 when the light rail was finally approved. Lower property values, the city is less built up, easier to acquire land, and better state capacity to manage and build infrastructure. Hell, you probably could have gotten a heavy rail system connecting the whole southern half of the island for the same or little more than the light rail system they ended up getting. As an example, Atlanta's system cost about $1.4 billion in 1974 dollars for the original build, about $9 billion in today's dollars, for 48 miles of heavy rail. That's about $29 million per mile in 1974, or $187m per mile in 2025 dollars. Honolulu's light rail is what? Over $10 billion at this point for 20 planned miles of light rail? So $500m per mile? That's more than Atlanta's system, and more than double what Rome's Metro Line C cost per mile despite Line C both being tunneled and getting delayed by major archeological finds every couple hundred yards of tunneling.
Hawaii would be financially devastated if tourists stopped coming.
There is very little other industry.
If it was going to be really used to support the environment and offset tourist impact to the climate, it would be a good thing. My guess is, like most these initiatives, it is nothing more than a money grab to line certain connected people's pockets.
With how overrun they are they absolutely should have gone higher.
Hawaii is the most tourist-unfriendly place in the world. Which sucks, given that they have nothing else to offer the world.
It's so unfriendly to tourists that only 2.5 million of them visited in Q1 of 2025
Yet another reason not to visit Hawaii. There are countless other islands and tropical locales that are cheaper and better.
@ FNT Delta Diamond -- Out of curiosity, such as...?
I'm not FNT, but:
-Okinawa
-Thailand (both Andaman side and Gulf side)
-Philippines
-Malaysia (Perhentian islands; Semporna area)
Maybe not tropical as these are in Europe but absolutely fantastic islands that you can visit for way less money than Hawaii. Pristine beaches, amazing food, great boutique hotels: Sicily, Sardinia, Menorca, Milos, Crete, etc....
lmao you wont be missed mahalo
Yes, please don't come. We are at capacity.
Don't worry, we won't. Little rude Chinese people, insane pricing, dirty water, and frankly, the one time I was there, I was severely underwhelmed.
You're not that special, boo. Balonga or whatever you say in that made-up "language" of yours lol.
Mahalo