Trump Administration’s New Rules Threaten Historic Sites

The Trump administration revised regulations concerning historic preservation. These changes mark a departure from the federal agency’s traditional role of safeguarding historic sites nationwide. I, having served as the last Senate-confirmed chair of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, am building an interactive map, the National Preservation Atlas, to identify designated sites.

The role of the Advisory Council is to oversee Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This section ensures that federal actions, including construction and private resource extraction, consider effects on historic properties. Annually, approximately 120,000 federal projects follow this regulatory process.

The new regulations would narrow the protection scope, enabling mining and fossil-fuel projects in previously protected areas. Many sites of cultural, historic, or religious importance, including those significant to Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiians, and Alaska Natives, no longer receive protection. Hypothetically, projects like pipelines could intrude on sites as crucial as the Gettysburg Battlefield.

Furthermore, the proposal exempts many state and local activities from Section 106. This exemption includes significant infrastructure projects, mirroring the scale of mid-century urban renewal, which could devastate communities.

Even when projects remain under review, the reduced definition of harm disregards audible, visual, and atmospheric negative impacts. For example, the construction of Trump’s planned arch would subject Arlington National Cemetery’s visitors to extensive construction noise, disrupting views meant to honor our nation’s heroes.

The proposal also weakens mandatory consultation with stakeholders, such as Indian Tribes and local officials. Historically, consultations have led to design alterations that mitigate harm and conserve resources. The Trump administration’s approach potentially neglects these benefits, marginalizing sovereign tribes illegally.

This reaction stems from frustration over procedural delays, which are inherent to thorough deliberation. During my tenure, we adopted measures smoothing the Section 106 process, such as expediting projects with renewable energy aims and exempting significant Native Hawaiian restorations.

In contrast, the new plan expedites environmentally harmful projects while jeopardizing vulnerable historic places. The agency will accept public comments on these changes soon. Individuals concerned about preserving historic sites should voice their opinions. Resources like the National Preservation Atlas and the National Register can aid in identifying at-risk sites.

While these comments may not prevent the regulations from becoming final, they bolster the foundation for future legal challenges. It is crucial not to let America’s 250th founding anniversary symbolize our disregard for historical preservation.