ACHP Pushes July 24 Vote to Weaken 1966 Preservation Rules for Trump Projects
Updated
Updated · CNN International · Jul 21
ACHP Pushes July 24 Vote to Weaken 1966 Preservation Rules for Trump Projects
3 articles · Updated · CNN International · Jul 21
Summary
An internal ACHP email gave members until 5 p.m. ET Friday, July 24, to approve revisions to Section 106, the review process at the heart of disputes over several Trump projects in Washington.
The proposed rewrite would cut public-comment requirements, give agencies more control over construction reviews, shorten timelines, and replace a duty to “avoid, minimize or mitigate” harm with “reasonable mitigation measures.”
The draft also strikes many consultation requirements involving Native American religious or historic interests, prompting preservation groups to call the changes a gutting of federal protections for historic and archeological sites.
Trump has appointed more than half a dozen of the 24 ACHP members, and if the council approves the changes, they would go to OMB before a 30-day public comment period and a final vote.
Can America fast-track future projects without dismantling sixty years of historic preservation laws?
If federal consultation is no longer mandatory, how will Native American sacred sites be protected from development?
The Future of Section 106: Major Rollbacks Proposed for U.S. Historic Preservation Law in 2026
Overview
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is about to vote on major changes to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, with a decision expected as soon as July 24, 2026. These proposed revisions aim to significantly alter the review process that currently ensures careful consideration of impacts on historic properties. While Section 106 has previously delayed high-profile projects by requiring thorough scrutiny, the new changes are intended to streamline reviews and reduce regulatory burdens. This shift could weaken protections for historic sites nationwide, raising concerns among preservationists and prompting widespread debate about the future of cultural resource protection.