Trump-Appointed 24-Member Council Moves to Gut 60-Year Historic Review Rules
Updated
Updated · CBS New York · Jul 23
Trump-Appointed 24-Member Council Moves to Gut 60-Year Historic Review Rules
3 articles · Updated · CBS New York · Jul 23
Summary
A vote this week by the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation would make state review optional, drop required public comment and narrow who can challenge federal projects under Section 106.
The proposed rewrite targets the 60-year-old process that now requires federal agencies to consider harm to historic properties and consult states, tribes and other parties before projects proceed.
Twenty of the council's 24 members are Trump appointees, and critics say the rushed effort could ease oversight for future federal construction and renovation projects, including ones tied to Trump priorities.
The National Trust, tribal preservation officers and state preservation officials all oppose the plan, warning it would weaken protections for sacred places and historic sites and could trigger legal action.
Could fast-tracking a D.C. monument create a blueprint for bypassing preservation efforts at historic sites nationwide?
As preservation rules are rewritten, who will now decide which pieces of American history are worth saving?
2026 Section 106 Revisions: Federal Rule Changes Spark National Backlash Over Historic Preservation
Overview
In July 2026, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation proposed major changes to Section 106, the federal historic preservation process. These revisions aim to address delays and regulatory burdens, especially for large energy projects, by giving federal agencies more discretion and shifting the focus from avoiding harm to simply mitigating it. Critics argue this weakens protections for historic and tribal sites, as seen in past disputes like the SunZia transmission line. The changes have sparked strong opposition from tribal groups, preservation professionals, and lawmakers, who warn that reducing consultation and oversight could lead to the loss of irreplaceable cultural heritage.