The Trump administration's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation voted in July 2026 to rewrite the regulations governing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, a decades-old federal requirement that agencies consult tribes, states, and the public before approving projects affecting historic sites. The Advisory Council voted 16–5 on July 24, 2026, to advance a notice of proposed rulemaking that would drastically rewrite these regulations.
The proposal would make those consultations optional rather than mandatory and streamline project reviews in ways that could bypass protections for archaeological sites, buildings, landmarks, and landscapes nationwide. The overhaul reflects a broader Trump administration effort to accelerate infrastructure development by cutting regulatory timelines. But the changes are controversial: tribal nations argue they would weaken sovereignty over cultural resources, preservationists warn of irreversible damage to historic sites, and critics dispute the administration's claim that Section 106 causes project delays.
Table of Contents
- //www.preservenys.org/advocacy-updates/section-106-under-threat)
- How the Proposal Changes Section 106
- Administration Arguments vs. Critics' Concerns
- What Happens Next
- Who Feels the Impact
- Frequently Asked Questions
//www.preservenys.org/advocacy-updates/section-106-under-threat)
Under current rules, agencies follow a step-by-step framework that requires them to identify historic properties, assess project impacts (including indirect and cumulative effects over time), and involve affected tribes and state historic preservation offices in finding solutions. The process can take months, particularly when cumulative impacts—such as how a project combines with others to damage a landscape—need evaluation.
How the Proposal Changes Section 106
The proposed changes would make tribal consultation, state consultation, and public participation discretionary rather than mandatory, allowing federal agencies to proceed without these reviews at their discretion. The overhaul would replace the current step-by-step review with a streamlined system in which agencies can prepare and certify their own reports without independent verification.
The revision would replace the existing step-by-step review framework with a streamlined agency-certified report system, eliminating the requirement to track indirect and cumulative effects on historic properties. Additionally, the proposed rules would narrow the definition of protected "historic properties" and exclude landscape features like the Grand Canyon from Section 106 review protections. These changes mean agencies could fast-track projects without assessing whether they collectively damage historic landscapes or whether tribal communities have a voice in decisions affecting sacred sites.
Administration Arguments vs. Critics' Concerns
The Trump administration justified the overhaul by pointing to lengthy review timelines, confusion over how to measure cumulative effects, and delays to infrastructure projects. Officials argued that Section 106's complexity slows development without proportional benefit. According to the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, executive director Ira L.
Matt challenged this framing, arguing that delays stem from understaffing and late-stage consultation by agencies rather than Section 106's structure itself. Critics also warn that removing cumulative effects analysis could allow projects to irreversibly damage historic and cultural landscapes when considered individually, even though their collective impact is catastrophic. The reduction in tribal consultation raises sovereignty concerns, particularly given tribes' legal right to manage their own cultural heritage and archaeological resources on both reservation and non-reservation lands. For preservationists, the narrowed definition of protected properties would leave thousands of vulnerable sites outside federal review entirely.
What Happens Next
The proposed rule does not take effect immediately. A roughly 30-day public comment period follows the ACHP vote, and the proposed rule must clear additional federal rulemaking steps before implementation. Federal agencies, tribes, states, preservation groups, and the public can submit written feedback during this window.
The rulemaking process may extend into 2027, and the final rule's language could shift based on public response, though the administration's 16–5 ACHP vote suggests strong internal support for the core changes. Stakeholders can participate by submitting formal comments to the Federal Register when the proposed rule is published. Legal challenges are also possible once a final rule is adopted, though their success depends on whether courts find the changes arbitrary or in violation of the underlying statute.
Who Feels the Impact
The changes would affect any project involving federal approval or money. Infrastructure projects—roads, railways, pipelines, utility corridors, and renewable energy installations—would face fewer barriers to approval. Archaeological sites and historic buildings would receive less protection if agencies choose to skip consultation.
Tribal nations would lose a legal avenue to participate in decisions affecting sites sacred to their communities, even on private or federal land. State governments and preservation nonprofits would have less formal say in how their regions' cultural heritage is managed. Communities living near proposed projects or dependent on heritage tourism tied to historic sites would also be affected, though the rule change does not prevent state or local regulations from offering additional protections.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can states or tribes stop the rule change?
States cannot override federal rulemaking, but they can submit formal comments during the public comment period. Tribes can do the same and may pursue legal challenges if the final rule is adopted. Some states and tribes maintain separate state or tribal historic preservation laws that offer additional protections.
What if a project is already in Section 106 review?
Projects currently undergoing review would likely continue under existing rules until the new regulation is finalized and takes effect. The implementation timeline remains unclear.
Does this affect private property?
Only if the private property project requires federal funding, permits, or approval. Purely private projects without federal involvement are not subject to Section 106. However, if a project is on or near historic federal land or affects federally recognized tribal sites, it may still trigger review requirements.