A federal advisory body reshaped by Trump appointees has given preliminary approval to rules that would ease historic preservation reviews nationwide, prompting warnings from tribal and preservation groups that the changes were rushed through with little chance for input.
An independent federal body responsible for protecting historic sites has advanced proposed changes that critics say would make it easier for federally backed projects to proceed near landmarks, archaeological sites and culturally significant land. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), more than a third of whose members have been appointed by President Trump during his current term, gave preliminary approval to the reforms despite objections from several preservation organisations represented on the council. Among them is Ira Matt of the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, who described the process as feeling like “a bait and switch.”
What the council does
The ACHP is an independent federal agency established under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Its role is to ensure federal agencies weigh the impact of proposed projects on historic buildings, archaeological sites and other culturally significant places before construction begins. Central to this is the council’s oversight of the Section 106 review process, which requires federal agencies to consult Native American tribes, state historic preservation offices, local governments and preservation groups before approving projects that could affect historic properties.
What would change
The proposed rules would streamline and narrow the Section 106 process, allowing certain federally backed projects to proceed with fewer preservation reviews and less consultation. Supporters of the changes argue that the existing regulations, now more than 20 years old, are overly complex and have delayed major infrastructure and government projects by months or, in some cases, years. Having received preliminary approval from the council, the proposals must still pass review by the Office of Management and Budget before they can be published as formal federal regulations.
Preservation groups raise the alarm
Several organisations with seats on the council said they were caught off guard by the scope of the proposed changes, telling reporters they received the draft rules only shortly before the vote took place and had little meaningful opportunity to respond. Critics warn the reforms could make it easier to approve projects affecting historic federal buildings, Civil War sites, Native American cultural sites, national monuments, historic neighbourhoods and archaeological locations. Tribal preservation representatives have raised particular concern that the changes could weaken the formal consultation role Native American tribes currently hold when federal projects may affect land of cultural importance to them.
A council reshaped under Trump
President Trump has appointed more than a third of the ACHP’s current membership, including administration officials and figures closely aligned with his architectural and development priorities, according to critics of the reforms. They argue this has tilted the council’s composition toward supporting deregulation, shaping the outcome of Friday’s preliminary vote.
Connections to Trump’s plans for Washington
The push to loosen preservation rules comes as President Trump has unveiled a series of high-profile proposals to reshape the nation’s capital, including a 250-foot “Independence Arch” near Arlington National Cemetery, a new ballroom at the White House, and alterations to several historic federal buildings and public spaces. Preservation groups believe that weakening Section 106 oversight could smooth the path for these and other federal construction projects to move forward more quickly.
A nationwide impact
Although the controversy has largely centred on Washington, D.C., the proposed rules would apply across the country, potentially affecting thousands of federally funded transportation, energy, defence and infrastructure projects located near historic sites. Preservation organisations warn the changes risk undermining protections that have stood for nearly 60 years, while supporters maintain that modernising the review system is necessary to cut delays affecting important public projects.
