The Trump administration is advancing a proposed rule that would remove natural features—mountains, valleys, waterways, and landscapes—from the definition of "historic properties" under federal law. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, whose members are predominantly Trump appointees, voted July 24, 2026, to advance the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking revising Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the 50-year-old statute that has required federal agencies to consult with Tribal Nations before approving projects that affect sacred or cultural sites.
If approved, the rule would fundamentally alter how tribal governments participate in decisions about development on federal lands. The proposed revision would replace the existing step-by-step consultation process with a single agency-prepared "Section 106 Report" subject to federal agency certification, shifting from meaningful tribal participation throughout project review to tribes commenting on a finalized agency document. The change reflects a broader Trump administration priority to expedite energy, mining, and infrastructure permitting.
Table of Contents
- //www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/ConsultationwithIndianTribesHandbook6-11-21Final.pdf), according to the ACHP Tribal Consultation Handbook.
- How would the proposed rule change Section 106?
- Why does the Trump administration want these changes?
- Who opposes the changes and why?
- What happens next?
- Frequently Asked Questions
//www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/ConsultationwithIndianTribesHandbook6-11-21Final.pdf), according to the ACHP Tribal Consultation Handbook.
The consultation process has been the primary legal mechanism through which tribes have a voice in federal land-use decisions. Any federal agency action that might trigger section 106—from dam construction to mining on Bureau of Land Management land—requires this interaction.
How would the proposed rule change Section 106?
The rule eliminates natural features from the definition of "historic properties" altogether. This means federal agencies would no longer assess how a project might harm mountains, valleys, waterways, or landscapes, and would have no legal obligation to consult tribes about impacts to natural sacred sites. The proposal would replace the "avoid, minimize, or mitigate" adverse effects framework with a vaguer directive to simply "address" effects, while granting federal agencies unilateral authority to alter regulatory deadlines.
This shift matters because tribal cultural places exist as interconnected networks. Ceremonies may involve travel routes, gathering areas, viewsheds from multiple mountains, and water sources. The absence of visible structures does not diminish spiritual significance.
Why does the Trump administration want these changes?
The administration characterizes current section 106 requirements as regulatory burdens holding up development, particularly for energy, mining, and infrastructure projects on federal lands. The stated goal is to streamline federal permitting and reduce project timelines.
From this perspective, consultation and mitigation requirements delay economic activity without sufficient benefit. The administration views the existing process as unnecessarily restrictive and argues that efficiency gains will enable faster development of natural resources and infrastructure.
Who opposes the changes and why?
Tribal governments and their representatives have mobilized against the proposal. The National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO) voted against advancing the revised rule, citing concerns about eliminating tribal consultation, narrowing consideration of sacred places, and expanding unilateral federal agency decision-making authority.
Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, characterized the draft rule as "unacceptable," stating it eliminates meaningful federal consultation with Tribal governments before actions affecting sacred and cultural sites. Opponents argue the rule would strip away the only binding legal mechanism tribes possess to protect places central to their identity and religious practice, leaving decisions entirely to federal agencies and private developers.
What happens next?
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget in late July 2026 and awaits approval before publication in the Federal Register. Once published, the rule will enter a public comment period during which tribes, states, environmental organizations, and other stakeholders can formally object.
Organized tribal opposition will likely be substantial. After the comment period closes, ACHP will review input and either finalize, modify, or withdraw the rule. The final outcome depends partly on how many comments ACHP receives and how persuasive they are, though the Republican-controlled council has already signaled support for the revision.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can tribes still protect sacred sites if this rule passes?
They would lose the primary federal legal mechanism (Section 106 consultation) that currently forces agencies to listen. Tribes could still file lawsuits, but litigation is slower, costlier, and less preventative than advance consultation.
Why does it matter that natural features are removed from the definition?
Tribal sacred places often have no buildings or archaeology visible to outsiders. A mountain, spring, or viewshed can be spiritually central. Removing them from protection means agencies no longer assess harm or consult tribes about impacts.
Is there a public comment period where I can object?
Yes. After the rule is published in the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period. Tribal nations, nonprofit organizations, and individual citizens can submit written comments opposing or supporting the rule.