The administration of President Trump is discreetly initiating changes to a long-standing regulation related to the preservation of historic buildings and landscapes, which, if approved, could facilitate the development of the president’s favored projects in the capital.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent federal agency that operates within the executive branch, is looking to modify essential regulations associated with the National Historic Preservation Act, as reported by USdaily.
Enacted in 1966, this act serves as the main federal legislation aimed at safeguarding historical and archaeological sites across the United States. Section 106 of the act requires federal agencies to assess the effects of their projects on historical properties.
Legal disputes regarding adherence to this section have been central to various challenges against several projects that President Trump has attempted to advance, such as the proposed construction of a “triumphal arch,” his initiative to label the Kennedy Center, the refurbishment of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, and his plan to acquire the public golf course at East Potomac Park.
However, an internal email circulated among ACHP members last week, which was obtained by USdaily, indicates that members are requested to cast their votes by July 24 regarding the approval of modifications to the execution of Section 106. Opponents argue that this action would diminish the necessary oversight for projects that could impact historically significant sites, essentially undermining a key aspect of the preservation law.
The email, which had “URGENT” in the subject line, stated that votes must be submitted by 5 p.m. ET on Friday.
“Although staff have not provided a summary of this proposed action, members will have the chance to discuss and ask questions prior to the final vote deadline,” wrote ACHP Vice Chairman Travis Voyles, who was appointed by Trump in April of last year.
The impending changes could significantly impact Trump’s efforts to imprint his influence on Washington by altering regulations in a way that would lessen the stringent review and examination associated with Section 106 compliance. Among the proposed modifications are the elimination of public comment requirements, granting greater authority to agencies undertaking construction projects, and altering review timelines.
The proposal substitutes the previous requirement for projects to “avoid, minimize or mitigate” negative effects on historical sites with a new one that mandates they implement “reasonable mitigation measures.” Furthermore, many provisions for consulting with Native American groups concerning the religious or historical significance for Indigenous communities have been removed.
Neither Voyles nor the ACHP responded to USdaily’s inquiry for comments. The Atlantic was the first to report on the proposed changes.
“On a scale from 1 to 10, it’s a 12 — it’s quite shocking,” stated Charles Birnbaum of the Cultural Landscape Foundation, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C.
“This would allow them complete freedom to do as they please,” Rebecca Miller, the executive director of the DC Preservation League, informed USdaily. “It’s not merely a minor adjustment — it’s a total dismantling of the Section 106 process.”
Both Birnbaum’s and Miller’s organizations have filed lawsuits against the administration, aiming to halt several of Trump’s proposed projects.
The White House and the Interior Department have not responded to USdaily’s request for comments regarding the proposed changes to historic preservation regulations.
In addition to Voyles, Trump has appointed over six members to the 24-member ACHP since assuming office, and the council currently lacks a chairman, a role that necessitates Senate confirmation.
Previously, the Trump administration dismissed members of the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission — two agencies responsible for overseeing construction on public land in Washington — replacing them with individuals of their choosing.
It remains uncertain how swiftly the changes to historic preservation rules could be enacted, but if they receive approval, the modified language will be forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget prior to undergoing a 30-day public comment period and a final vote.
