NPR reports that, on the 60th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the law’s core review process—known as Section 106—is facing dual challenges: a vote by a federal council described by NPR as packed with Trump appointees to weaken its regulations this summer, and a bipartisan permitting bill gaining traction in the Senate that would significantly narrow those reviews.
What changed
According to NPR, the council vote would scale back parts of Section 106, which requires federal agencies to consult states, Tribal Nations, and other stakeholders before projects that could affect historic resources proceed. Separately, NPR says the Senate bill aims to speed infrastructure and energy projects by limiting that review.
Why Section 106 matters
The NHPA created the National Register of Historic Places—now covering more than 100,000 landmarks, per NPR—and set up Section 106 consultations. Yale architecture and urban studies professor Elihu Rubin told NPR that Section 106 provides the “teeth” behind the law by forcing mitigation when federal projects threaten historic resources, while not automatically stopping projects.
Who is pushing back
Brent Leggs, president and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, told NPR that preservation has long depended on public–private partnership, adding, “Over the last year and a half, the federal government has divested that responsibility.”
Attorney Greg Werkheiser of Cultural Heritage Partners said the Senate proposal “will effectively rewrite the National Historic Preservation Act in ways that, for all intents and purposes, gut its meaning and protections,” according to NPR. He said a new coalition, Section 106 Strong, launched Thursday and spans 1,000 organizations—including religious, environmental and civil rights groups—and Tribal Nations representing more than 9 million Americans, per NPR.
Tribal seat at the table
Valerie Grussing of the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO) told NPR the proposed regulatory and statutory changes “would represent an enormous and devastating setback not just to pre-1992, but to pre-1966” levels of consideration for Tribal perspectives.
Does review slow projects?
The National Trust for Historic Preservation says the average Section 106 review takes 16 days and that 98% of reviews end with a finding of no adverse effect, NPR reports. “At the end of the day, it’s [about] whether or not the federal government can come into your backyard and to your community and do whatever they want,” Chris Cody, the National Trust’s senior associate general counsel, told NPR.
What could be at risk
NPR reports that advocates point to the Grand Canyon and Washington’s Arlington Memorial Bridge—where NPR says President Trump has proposed a 250-foot arch—as examples of places that could lose protections under the proposed changes. NPR also notes that critics view several Trump-era projects, including a municipal golf course redevelopment, as flouting preservation norms.
NPR further reports that the National Trust sued over construction of a White House ballroom but lost when the Supreme Court found the nonprofit lacked standing. The Trust has since announced a multimillion-dollar legal defense fund, initially aiming to raise $10 million, and convened a summit at Washington National Cathedral, a protected historic site, according to NPR.
The court fight risk
Critics told NPR the Senate bill leaves key terms undefined—such as what counts as a “minor” restoration—and could invite lawsuits. Werkheiser told NPR that Senate staff said Democrats and Republicans couldn’t agree on definitions and expected courts to sort them out, undercutting claims the bill would reduce litigation. “You can disagree about politics,” he said. “But you shouldn’t have to fight your own government for the right to remember your past.”
