Trump administration's Section 106 proposal would weaken federal environmental and cultural protections for historic properties affected by highways, energy projects, and federal buildings. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation voted 16–5 on July 24, 2026 to advance the rewrite, which would narrow which projects require federal review, eliminate protection for broad cultural landscape areas like the Grand Canyon, and remove mandatory tribal consultation rights—changes that could fast-track infrastructure nationwide. The proposal has not yet become law. It must still be published as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and survive a 30-day public comment period before the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs approves it.
Table of Contents
- //www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/practitioners/environmental-historic/laws/nhpa/section-106). This requirement triggers formal consultation with state historic preservation officers, tribal historic preservation officers, and the public before the project can move forward.
- How the Proposal Would Narrow Protections
- Who Gets Hit Hardest
- Timeline and What's Still to Come
- How to Respond During the Comment Period
- Frequently Asked Questions
//www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/practitioners/environmental-historic/laws/nhpa/section-106). This requirement triggers formal consultation with state historic preservation officers, tribal historic preservation officers, and the public before the project can move forward.
The process is not designed to stop projects; it is designed to identify risks, explore alternatives, and reach agreement on how to avoid or reduce harm. For decades, this has meant that large infrastructure projects have had to engage with communities and tribes who care about cultural or archaeological resources.
How the Proposal Would Narrow Protections
The rewrite would shrink Section 106's reach in three major ways. First, it would narrow the definition of "federal undertaking" to exclude state or locally administered projects with minimal federal funding or oversight—meaning a highway or energy project structured as mostly state-run could skip federal review even if federal dollars are involved. Second, the proposal would eliminate protection for "significant cultural landscape features," erasing safeguards for areas like the Grand Canyon.
Instead of considering broad effects on scenic and culturally important landscapes, federal agencies would only look at specific identified historic buildings or sites. Third, the rewrite would make federal agency approval optional for public comment and remove mandatory early consultation with tribes, state preservation offices, and local governments. Agencies could decide whether to solicit input at all.
Who Gets Hit Hardest
Highways and energy projects stand to change most. Many highway construction and energy installations with federal funding would now qualify as outside Section 106's definition if structured to minimize stated federal involvement or shifted to state and local administration.
That could mean fewer traffic lights, fewer environmental reviews, and faster timelines for projects in rural and tribal areas. Tribal nations face the biggest direct loss: the proposal deletes language recognizing government-to-government relationships and would allow federal agencies to proceed without consulting tribal historic preservation officers, even for projects affecting sacred sites or culturally significant properties. For tribes that have spent decades building relationships with federal agencies to protect ancestral lands, this reversal is substantial.
Timeline and What's Still to Come
The ACHP vote on July 24, 2026 was expedited—council members received the draft July 17 and voted a week later, bypassing the council's own rule requiring two months for member comment. This raised concerns about due process among preservation organizations and state officials.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking still must be published in the Federal Register with a 30-day public comment period, and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs must review it. As of August 2026, the rule is not final. Anyone—individuals, tribes, local governments, nonprofits—can submit written comments once it appears.
How to Respond During the Comment Period
When the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking publishes in the Federal Register, watch for the comment deadline. Federal rulemaking comments are free and public: you can submit a letter explaining how Section 106 protections matter to you—whether because you live near a proposed highway, care about tribal sovereignty, work in historic preservation, or have a stake in a specific project. Comments are archived and reviewed by the agency before final rules are written.
Contact your state historic preservation office or tribal government now to learn whether they plan to submit comments or host public input sessions. Many organize these opportunities. If you live in or near an area with pending infrastructure projects, the state SHPO can tell you what historic properties might be affected and whether this proposal changes the timeline.
Frequently Asked Questions
If the proposal passes, would it affect projects already under Section 106 review?
No. Section 106 requirements apply from the time a federal agency makes a decision to fund or permit a project. Projects already in consultation would likely finish under current rules. New projects proposed after the rule takes effect would be subject to new (narrower) requirements.
How is this different from the Trump administration's other infrastructure rollbacks?
Section 106 is not an environmental regulation—it is a historic preservation law. But it often slows or redirects infrastructure because historic sites and tribal lands overlap with proposed highways and energy corridors. Narrowing Section 106 could speed approvals in areas that would have triggered lengthy consultations under current rules.
Can tribes or nonprofits sue to block this rule?
Potentially, yes. Tribes and nonprofits could challenge the rule in federal court on grounds that it violates the National Historic Preservation Act or the Administrative Procedure Act (the law governing how federal agencies make rules). But litigation takes years. Submitting strong comments during the public comment period is faster and often more effective at influencing the final rule.