Trump officials push radical changes to historic preservation, imperiling cultural sites, Indigenous sovereignty, and public oversight for corporate gain.
Introduction
In a move that sends shivers down the spine of every advocate for cultural heritage and community voice, the Trump administration is once again attempting to systematically dismantle the very fabric of historic preservation in the United States. Just this week, on Friday, July 17, 2026, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) circulated a draft of proposed revisions to its crucial regulations governing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). These changes, pushed through with alarming speed for a vote by July 24, represent a profound threat to our nation's historic places, Indigenous sacred sites, and the fundamental right of the public to have a say in development that impacts their heritage. This is not merely bureaucratic tinkering; it is a calculated assault designed to fast-track projects for corporate interests at the expense of our collective past and future.
The Current Reality
The proposed revisions to 36 C.F.R. Part 800, which guides federal agencies in considering the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, have been met with immediate and fierce condemnation. GW Law Professor Sara Bronin, who served as the Senate-confirmed Chair of the ACHP from 2023 to 2024, did not mince words: "The proposed changes would unleash the Trump administration to fast-track projects that destroy, or cause irreversible damage to, our historic places, with virtually no public oversight."
The implications of this draft are chilling. According to Bronin, the revisions would "dramatically reduce historic properties protected, abdicate federal responsibility to Indian Tribes as sovereign nations, and exempt hundreds of billions of dollars of state and local projects from Section 106 review — all in clear violation of Congressional direction to the ACHP." Cultural Heritage Partners, a law firm specializing in preservation, further warns that the revisions would "devastate our ability to protect and preserve historic places" and "dramatically curtail public participation in federal decisions that affect local communities."
Specifically, the draft revisions would gut critical protections by:
- Stripping the regulations of language for meaningful consultation and changing its very definition.
- Eliminating the requirements for "avoidance, minimization, and mitigation" of adverse effects on historic properties.
- Removing protections for Traditional Cultural Landscapes, which are vital to Indigenous communities.
- Imperiling thousands of significant cultural and historical sites by altering the definition of what constitutes "historic".
This push to dismantle historic preservation is not an isolated incident. The Trump administration's fiscal year 2026 budget proposal also seeks to eliminate the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), the primary federal funding mechanism for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs). These offices are the linchpin of preservation efforts nationwide, and their defunding would effectively cripple the ability of states and tribes to protect their heritage and provide community input.
Adding insult to injury, on July 13, 2026, President Trump signed proclamations drastically reducing the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments in Utah. This move, framed as "restoring sensible land management," effectively opens these culturally and scientifically significant landscapes to "multiple-use, sustained-yield management," including resource development, a clear reversal of established protections. This action follows a failed effort by congressional Republicans to legislatively roll back these protections, indicating a willingness to bypass democratic processes when convenient. Even the president's proposed "triumphal arch" in Washington D.C., a vanity project facing numerous legal and historic preservation hurdles, is now being used as a justification to circumvent Section 106 reviews.
A Progressive Critique
This administration's relentless attack on historic preservation is a predictable but no less alarming manifestation of its broader agenda: deregulation at any cost, prioritizing corporate profits and unchecked development over public good, environmental protection, and cultural integrity. The pretense of "streamlining" and "efficiency" is a thin veil for enabling developers to bulldoze over history without accountability.
The proposed weakening of Section 106 is a direct assault on democratic principles. By curtailing public participation and eliminating meaningful consultation, it silences local communities and disempowers Indigenous Nations, whose ancestral lands and sacred sites are disproportionately affected by federal undertakings. The abdication of federal responsibility to Tribal Nations is a profound betrayal of government-to-government relationships and a continuation of historical injustices. The idea that "avoidance, minimization, and mitigation" are expendable reveals a dangerous disregard for the irreplaceable nature of our heritage.
This policy isn't just about old buildings; it's about who gets to tell their story, whose history matters, and who benefits from development. Wealthy developers and their political allies stand to gain immense profits from loosened regulations, while communities lose tangible links to their past, cultural identity, and the very places that give them meaning. From a progressive viewpoint, historic preservation is not a barrier to progress but a cornerstone of sustainable development, cultural equity, and social justice. It is a tool for understanding our past mistakes, celebrating diverse narratives, and building resilient, rooted communities. This administration's actions demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding, or outright rejection, of these values.
The Path Forward
The fight to protect our shared heritage is far from over, but it requires immediate and decisive action. GW Law Professor Sara Bronin has stated that if adopted, these regulations will be challenged in court, and she doubts they will survive judicial scrutiny. Preservation advocates are already mobilizing, urging concerned citizens to begin drafting comment letters now, ahead of any formal public comment period, to make their voices heard against the ACHP's proposed revisions. Groups like Cultural Heritage Partners are actively working to defend Section 106 and America's heritage laws, encouraging communities to report any instances where federal agencies are cutting corners in the review process. The National Trust for Historic Preservation is also deeply engaged, providing leadership and resources to the preservation community.
We must resist this administration's regressive agenda by:
- Mass Mobilization: Demand that the ACHP reject these devastating revisions. Every letter, every phone call, every protest matters.
- Legal Challenge: Support organizations and legal experts poised to challenge these illegal and ill-conceived regulations in court, as Professor Bronin has predicted.
- Congressional Pressure: Advocate for Congress to not only resist the proposed cuts to the Historic Preservation Fund but to strengthen the NHPA and allocate increased funding for SHPOs and THPOs.
- Community Empowerment: Continue to organize at local levels, educating communities about their rights under Section 106 and empowering them to actively participate in safeguarding their local history and cultural sites.
Preserving our history is not a luxury; it is a necessity for a just and equitable society. It is how we learn from our triumphs and our failures, how we honor those who came before us, and how we ensure a rich and meaningful legacy for future generations. We cannot allow this administration to exchange our irreplaceable heritage for a fast buck. The time to stand up for our past, present, and future is now.