New Federal Rule Could Change How America’s Historic Sites Are Protected

When people think about protecting historic landmarks, they often picture famous battlefields, national monuments, or centuries-old buildings. But many of those places are protected through a little-known federal review process that happens long before construction begins. Now, proposed changes to that system could significantly alter how future federal projects move forward.

The proposal comes from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), an independent federal agency created under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The council is considering revisions to regulations governing Section 106, a process that requires federal agencies to consider how projects they fund, permit, license, or carry out could affect historic properties before decisions are made.

Supporters of the existing process describe Section 106 as a way to balance development with preservation by bringing together federal agencies, state officials, tribal governments, preservation experts, and the public. Critics of the proposed revisions argue that changing those rules could reshape how historic places across the country are reviewed for decades to come.

What Would Actually Change?

The proposed rule would make several notable changes to how Section 106 reviews are conducted. According to documents reviewed by multiple news outlets, public comment would no longer be required in every case, consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers would become optional rather than mandatory in some situations, and the definition of what qualifies as a historic property would also be revised. The proposal would also reduce consultation requirements for some tribal and Native Hawaiian organizations.

Another proposed change would revise how federal agencies respond to projects that could harm historic places. Current regulations emphasize avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating adverse effects where possible. Under the draft revisions, agencies would instead be required to take what the proposal describes as “reasonable mitigation measures,” a change preservation groups say weakens existing protections.

The revisions would apply to future federal projects rather than reopening completed reviews. If approved by the council, the proposal would move through additional federal review, including review by the Office of Management and Budget and a public comment period before any final regulations could take effect.

Why the Proposal Has Become So Controversial

Opposition has come from preservation organizations, state historic preservation officials, and tribal representatives, who argue the changes would reduce oversight at the very time many large federal projects are moving forward. The National Trust for Historic Preservation says the revisions would remove long-standing safeguards that encourage agencies to avoid or minimize harm to historic sites while giving communities fewer opportunities to participate in decisions.

The National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers has also criticized the proposal, arguing it would weaken tribal consultation and diminish protections for culturally significant and sacred places. The organization says reducing formal consultation would undermine tribal sovereignty and long-established government-to-government relationships during federal decision-making.

Preservation advocates also warn that narrowing the definition of historic properties and limiting consideration of indirect or foreseeable impacts could affect not only individual buildings but also historic neighborhoods, archaeological sites, and cultural landscapes. The National Trust argues the proposed rules could create legal uncertainty and lead to more litigation rather than streamlining reviews.

The Debate Sparks Bigger Question About Development

Supporters of updating the regulations argue that federal permitting and environmental reviews can slow infrastructure and development projects, and they believe modernizing the Section 106 process could make reviews more efficient. The ACHP has previously identified balancing permitting reform with historic preservation as one of its legislative priorities.

Critics counter that Section 106 does not automatically stop projects but instead requires agencies to consider impacts before construction begins and consult with affected communities. They argue the process often leads to negotiated solutions that allow development to proceed while preserving important historic and cultural resources.

The outcome of the proposal could influence everything from transportation projects and public buildings to energy infrastructure and federal land management. The final rule has not yet been adopted, but preservation groups, tribal organizations, and state officials are closely watching because it could affect how America’s historic places are protected for years to come.