Trump Allies Vote to Weaken Protections for Historic Sites

In a move that preservation advocates say threatens the nation’s cultural heritage, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)—a federal agency now controlled by 21 Trump appointees out of 24 voting members—voted on July 24 to advance sweeping revisions to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The proposed changes would dramatically reduce federal oversight of historic sites, eliminate mandatory tribal consultation, and curtail public participation in the review process.

What Is Section 106?

Enacted in 1966, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to evaluate how their projects affect historic properties. The law was a direct response to the destruction of iconic landmarks like New York City’s Penn Station during the post-war era of urban renewal and highway construction. It established a review process that allows preservation groups, local and tribal governments, and the general public to weigh in on proposed federal projects, requiring agencies to consider “adverse effects” and explore ways to “avoid, minimize, or mitigate” those harms.

The ACHP, the independent federal agency overseeing the Section 106 process, typically includes representatives from federal agencies, state and tribal historic preservation officers, and expert members appointed by the president.

A Rushed and Controversial Process

The path to the vote was marked by unusual haste. In February 2026, the ACHP initiated a review of Section 106 regulations, and as late as June 4, the Council adopted a resolution directing staff to develop a timeline with milestones, giving members 60 days to submit feedback. But on the late afternoon of Friday, July 17, ACHP Vice Chairman Travis Voyles circulated a nearly complete rewrite of the regulations via email, giving Council members just one week—until July 24—to review and vote.

That accelerated timeline drew sharp criticism. As NPR reported, the rushed schedule effectively abandoned the previously agreed-upon 60-day review period, leaving little time for meaningful input from preservation experts or the public.

Key Changes Under the Proposal

The proposed rulemaking includes eight major changes that critics say would fundamentally gut the historic preservation framework:

1. Narrowing “Historic Property”: The new definition would require geographic compactness and tangible human improvements, excluding natural features like mountains, valleys, and bodies of water. The Grand Canyon would no longer qualify as a historic property.

2. Making Public Comment Optional: The phrase “views of the public are essential” would be eliminated. Public participation would become entirely discretionary.

3. Eliminating Mandatory Tribal Consultation: Requirements to consult with tribes on projects affecting culturally significant sites would be removed, along with language recognizing tribal expertise on religious and cultural sites.

4. Narrowing “Adverse Effects”: The definition would be limited to direct, foreseeable effects with a close causal relationship, excluding indirect and cumulative harms—including changes to setting, visual, or atmospheric elements.

5. Reducing State and Local Participation: Local governments would no longer be entitled to consult, and preservation organizations would lose their status as consulting parties.

6. Shifting to Agency Control: Federal agencies would prepare consolidated reports before circulating them, meaning consulting parties react to a completed analysis rather than helping shape it.

7. Expanding Exemptions: Broad categories of federally connected actions would be excluded from review entirely.

8. Making Mitigation Discretionary: Memorandums of Agreement would become optional, and agencies could issue unilateral Memorandums of Decision.

Fierce Opposition

The proposal has drawn condemnation from a broad coalition of preservation advocates, tribal nations, and Democratic lawmakers. Brent Leggs, CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, warned that “the ACHP’s proposed changes to Section 106 will eviscerate the preservation of our shared civic and cultural heritage in the United States.”

Ira L. Matt, Executive Director of the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, called the regulations “an affront to Tribal sovereignty.”

Greg Werkheiser, founding partner of Cultural Heritage Partners, offered a stark warning: “As sure as the sun rises and sets over Washington, D.C., there will be litigation.” Werkheiser also noted 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.”

Senate Democrats, led by Energy and Natural Resources Ranking Member Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, released a statement opposing the changes and signaling a legislative fight ahead.

A Pattern of Projects in Washington

The regulatory overhaul comes as the Trump administration pursues several high-profile projects in the Washington, D.C. area, including a 250-foot triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery, renovations to the White House ballroom, repainting of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, proposed permanent fencing around Lafayette Square, and planned Kennedy Center renovations. Some of these projects have already faced legal scrutiny over historic preservation concerns.

What Happens Next

The proposed rule does not take effect immediately. It will now proceed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review, followed by publication in the Federal Register with a 30-day public comment period. Legal challenges are virtually certain once the rule advances.

Preservation groups and tribal nations are expected to mount a vigorous fight through both the comment process and the courts. Critics argue the changes would create more uncertainty for developers and federal agencies, not less, by eliminating the structured process that currently governs historic preservation reviews.

For millions of Americans concerned about protecting their local heritage—from historic downtowns to sacred tribal lands—the battle over Section 106 is only just beginning.