Trump Appointees Weaken Historic Preservation Nationwide

A federal advisory council whose membership is overwhelmingly composed of Trump appointees voted on July 24 to advance a sweeping rewrite of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, a move that would dramatically weaken protections for historic and culturally significant sites across the United States. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) voted 16-5-2 to push forward proposed regulatory changes that critics say will endanger more than 100,000 historic properties and effectively silence public participation in the review process.

What Is Section 106?

Enacted in 1966 amid public outrage over urban renewal projects that had demolished iconic landmarks such as New York City’s original Penn Station, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to evaluate how proposed construction projects would affect historic places. Under current rules, agencies must determine whether a project would cause “adverse effects” to historic properties and explore ways to “avoid, minimize, or mitigate” those harms through consultation with preservation groups, local governments, and Native American tribes. The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) describes the existing framework as a collaborative process that has produced thousands of successful compromises between development and preservation.

The Vote and the Council

The ACHP, a federal agency whose 21 of 24 seats are controlled by President Trump, voted under the leadership of Acting Vice Chairman Travis Voyles. The vote followed an expedited timeline: council members received near-complete draft amendments on July 18 and were asked to vote within one week, bypassing the more deliberate process that had initially been outlined.

Key Proposed Changes

According to draft language obtained by NPR and The Atlantic, the proposed rule changes would:

• Redefine historic properties to exclude “significant landscape features” such as the Grand Canyon
• Make public comment optional, eliminating language that states “views of the public are essential to informed Federal decisionmaking”
• Remove the requirement to consult with Native American tribes during project review
• Narrow “adverse effects” to only direct and foreseeable impacts, excluding indirect or cumulative harms
• Allow agencies to condense the consultation process into a single written report shared with third parties rather than engaging them throughout
• Create exemptions for federally funded projects administered by local authorities

Charles Birnbaum, president and CEO of The Cultural Landscape Foundation, compared the approach to the urban renewal era that originally spurred the passage of the 1966 law. “Consent of the governed is being replaced with my way or the highway,” he said. “This is the same haughty, retrograde, and myopic attitude that resulted in urban renewal, which decimated cities with highways and destroyed countless neighborhoods nationwide, especially underserved communities.”

National Implications

While much attention has centered on Trump’s controversial proposed 250-foot Triumphal Arch near Arlington National Cemetery, preservation advocates warn that the impact would be felt nationwide. The National Register of Historic Places contains over 100,000 properties encompassing more than 1.8 million buildings, structures, sites, and districts.

Sara Bronin, who served as the Senate-confirmed chair of the ACHP under President Biden, told NPR that state highway widening projects “which in the past have been highly destructive of historic places, including not only whole neighborhoods but also burial sites … won’t [undergo Section 106 review] under the new rules.” She added that the changes would have “the effect of not surfacing the location, significance and effects on historic sites, meaning that they could have the potential to be destroyed at scale.”

Greg Werkheiser, founding partner of Cultural Heritage Partners, warned that “every American who has any place in their heart that is historic or culturally significant to them should be concerned about this attempt to gut historic preservation protections.” He said the new rules would allow the federal government to decide “whether — if ever — to tell an American community that it’s about to do a major project that could harm or destroy a historic resource. The public will be completely cut out of any conversation.”

The D.C. Connection

The proposed changes would remove viewscape and noise impact considerations from the review process, potentially removing key obstacles to Trump’s Washington, D.C., development agenda, which includes the Triumphal Arch, a White House ballroom renovation, and the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool renovation. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has already opposed the changes, and the Cultural Landscape Foundation has sued over the administration’s repainting of the Reflecting Pool, arguing the National Park Service improperly used a streamlined review.

Legal and Legislative Outlook

Werkheiser predicted inevitable litigation, stating: “As sure as the sun rises and sets over Washington, D.C., there will be litigation in an attempt to stop this absurd gutting of protections of American history.” Legal challenges generally require a final agency action, meaning the public comment period and final rulemaking must conclude before lawsuits can proceed.

Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee have urged the council to reconsider, but with Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress, legislative intervention appears unlikely.

What Happens Next

The proposed rule must now clear several more stages: review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget, publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register, a 30-day public comment period, final rule development, and a second OIRA review. Bronin encouraged the public to participate, saying: “I think that the public comment on the regulations will really help to send a powerful message that we care about our historic places and we don’t want them to be destroyed.”

For now, preservation advocates are bracing for what could be the most significant rollback of federal historic preservation policy in more than two decades, with the fate of thousands of historic sites hanging in the balance.