On Friday, the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), most of whose members were appointed by President Trump or include leaders of Trump-controlled agencies, sent an internal draft proposal to eliminate federal regulations requiring public and state input before construction begins on historic sites, as first reported The Atlantic.
The suggested amendments to regulations, shared by the Washington Post, have stoked fears that the requested changes to existing rules will give Trump nearly unchecked power to build a portfolio of controversial projects monumentalizing him in the US capital, while also threatening historic sites around the country, including those considered sacred by Indigenous tribes.
“This is not only a massive assault on laws that have benefited that nation for some 60 years, it almost completely eliminates the role of the public,” added Charles A. Birnbaum, CEO of the Cultural Landscape Foundation, in a statement to the Post. If the proposal goes through, “what is going to happen regularly is communities are not going to know that major projects are happening in their backyard until the bulldozers show up,” said Marion F. Werkheiser, an attorney at Cultural Heritage Partners, also speaking to the Post. The firm is involved in a lawsuit against Trump’s planned changes to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. According to Werkheiser, the ACHP proposal also reduces what may be considered historic property eligible for protection, which could mean that land considered sacred to Indigenous tribes would lose protection.
Currently, a federal, multistep process known as Section 106 is required before building on property that is federal land, receives federal funding, or involves private projects that need additional federal approval. This notably concerns landmarks, locations that may be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and sites that are important to Native tribes. The 60-year-old review process is designed so that the potential impact of construction projects is reasonably evaluated before breaking ground, thanks to input from the public, the state, and other parties, including heritage protection organizations. However, participants in the review cannot ultimately veto a project, though they can flag concerns and slow it down.
The ACHP argues in its proposal, which still requires a vote from its own members, that the new changes align “with the flexible, easily administrable process Congress envisioned,” and responds to criticism that the current system is mired in red tape. To that end, among the draft’s listed “other notable changes proposed through this rulemaking,” it reads: “Making public comment an optional, not mandatory, part of the Section 106 process.”
According to the Post, Vice Chairman of the ACHP, Travis Voyles, has asked council members to vote on the draft amendments by Friday. Meanwhile, the White House declined to comment.
