On the 60th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act, advocates warn that the foundational law protecting more than 100,000 American historic sites is facing significant threats from both regulatory changes and pending legislation. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the act into law on Oct. 15, 1966, establishing a framework for identifying and protecting historic resources. Today, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, now composed largely of Trump appointees, has voted to weaken Section 106 regulations, while a bipartisan Senate bill seeks to streamline the review process to accelerate infrastructure and energy projects.
What the Right Is Saying
Supporters of the regulatory and legislative changes argue that the current Section 106 review process is inefficient and hinders necessary infrastructure and energy development. The bipartisan Senate bill, introduced in late September, aims to "reform the federal environmental review and permitting process" to "deliver cheaper energy, more jobs, and responsible growth" across the United States.
Proponents of the bill contend that streamlining Section 106 will remove bureaucratic hurdles that delay projects without significantly altering their environmental or historical impact. By narrowing the scope of analysis and restricting legal remedies for violations, the bill seeks to expedite the construction of critical infrastructure.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which voted in July to weaken Section 106 regulations, includes 20 Trump appointees out of 24 members. The council's proposed changes would limit what qualifies as a historic property, excluding "significant landscape features" like the Grand Canyon, and make public comment on new projects optional. Supporters of these regulatory shifts argue they provide clarity and reduce the regulatory burden on federal agencies.
While the source material highlights the advocates' perspective heavily, the framing of the Senate bill's sponsors emphasizes economic benefits and efficiency. The bill's proponents suggest that the current system is overly broad and that targeted reforms are needed to meet modern energy and infrastructure demands.
What the Left Is Saying
Historic preservation advocates and tribal leaders argue that the proposed changes undermine decades of progress and exclude public and tribal voices from federal decision-making. Brent Leggs, president and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, stated that the federal government has divested its responsibility to partner with the public on preservation efforts over the last year and a half.
Valerie Grussing, executive director of legislative affairs for the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO), described the regulatory changes as a "five-alarm fire" and the statutory proposals as a "wildfire." She noted that the changes would represent a devastating setback to tribal voice and perspective, reversing gains made since the 1992 amendments that included Native American tribes in preservation duties.
Greg Werkheiser of Cultural Heritage Partners, leading a coalition called "Section 106 Strong," said the changes would effectively rewrite the act and gut its protections. He argued that excluding public and expert consultation at the start of projects would not create efficiency but rather increase the likelihood of litigation and controversy. "You can disagree about politics," Werkheiser said. "But you shouldn't have to fight your own government for the right to remember your past."
Advocates point to specific projects, such as a proposed 250-foot arch near Arlington Memorial Bridge and renovations to the White House, as examples where historic preservation norms are being bypassed. The National Trust has launched a legal defense fund aiming to raise $10 million to challenge these moves, with attorney Chris Cody describing the current moment as an "existential crisis" for preservation efforts nationwide.
What the Numbers Show
The National Historic Preservation Act was signed into law 60 years ago, creating the National Register of Historic Places, which now lists more than 100,000 sites. Section 106 of the act requires federal agencies to consult with states, tribes, and stakeholders before undertaking projects that could harm these sites.
According to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the nationwide average time for a Section 106 review is 16 days, and 98% of those reviews conclude that the project will have no adverse effect on nearby historic resources. Despite this, the proposed changes aim to further restrict the process.
The "Section 106 Strong" coalition includes 1,000 organizations and Tribal Nations collectively representing more than 9 million Americans. The National Trust has launched a defense fund with an initial goal of $10 million. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is composed of 24 members, 20 of whom were appointed by President Trump.
The Senate plans to consider the permitting reform bill when it returns from recess on Nov. 9. The Advisory Council's regulatory changes are still undergoing the federal rulemaking process, including a 30-day public comment period that has not yet opened. The council is scheduled to meet next on Nov. 10.
The Bottom Line
The future of federal historic preservation policy hinges on actions taken in November. The Senate's consideration of the bipartisan permitting reform bill and the Advisory Council's finalization of regulatory changes will determine whether Section 106 reviews are significantly narrowed. Advocates warn that enshrining these changes in law would create long-term barriers to public and tribal involvement in federal projects.
Critics note that the bill contains undefined terms, such as "minor" restoration, which could lead to legal ambiguity. If the Senate passes the bill, it would override existing regulatory frameworks, potentially limiting the ability of future administrations to restore broader protections without new legislation. The outcome will affect not only iconic landmarks but also local communities seeking to protect their historic neighborhoods and cultural sites from federal development projects.