Critics Raise Concerns Over Proposed Changes to Historic Preservation Review

Trump’s Proposed Arch and Preservation Review

A mock-up of President Trump’s proposed triumphal arch was displayed at the state fair on D.C.’s National Mall in June. Before the real arch gets approved, it must undergo a historic preservation review. However, the Trump administration is considering a way around this procedural challenge by reducing federal oversight of construction projects impacting historic sites.

Critics argue this approach could facilitate President Trump’s projects in D.C. at the expense of historic and cultural sites nationwide. Greg Werkheiser from Cultural Heritage Partners expressed concerns for communities with historic attachments, stating these protections are being weakened by the administration’s efforts.

The National Register of Historic Places

The register includes over 100,000 properties, encompassing more than 1.8 million buildings and structures. From homes to landscapes, these sites define America. Werkheiser emphasizes that millions of such sites nationwide could become less protected.

The White House and the Department of the Interior have not commented on these developments.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 mandates federal agencies to evaluate new construction projects for impacts on historic sites. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, filled with Trump appointees, is considering diluting this process to accommodate federal projects without mandatory public consultation.

Sara Bronin, former chair under President Biden, highlighted the administration’s control over the advisory council, predicting they would move forward with proposed changes.

Controversial Proposed Changes

The proposed revisions redefine what can be considered historic, make public comments optional, and eliminate consultation requirements with Native American tribes. Werkheiser warns this gives the government discretion in potentially harmful projects without mandatory community discussion.

Council members were instructed to vote on these changes within a week, though the process includes several additional steps before implementation.

Potential Legal and Community Implications

Werkheiser anticipates legal battles opposing the changes, comparing the potential impact to historic devastation seen during post-World War II urban renewals.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has noted landmark features like the Grand Canyon may no longer qualify for protection. Bronin identifies various exemptions that would allow federally funded projects to bypass review.

Additionally, the redefined process would allow agencies to compile reports without public or direct consultation.

Public Reaction and Future Prospects

The Cultural Landscape Foundation founder, Charles Birnbaum, likened the revised law to historical negligence seen during urban renewal, emphasizing the importance of public consent.

Lawsuits from preservation groups, including those against the administration’s renovation projects, reflect ongoing pushback.

Simplifying Section 106 reviews would aid Trump’s projects’ approval but spark concerns of neglecting historical impacts.

Community Action and Legislative Options

There is strong opposition from several organizations, including the National Trust for Historic Preservation and tribal preservation officers, questioning the expedited voting and the content of the proposed changes.

Elizabeth Merrit voices concerns over the disruptions these changes might cause. Werkheiser argues the existing process is beneficial for developers seeking certainty and data early in their plans.

Public engagement during the comment period along with legislative discussions could influence future preservation efforts. Bronin encourages a bipartisan approach to maintaining historic site protections.

Senate Democrats urge reconsideration of the changes, advocating for collaboration with tribal and state representatives on improvement proposals.