By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy. We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a federal organization largely staffed by recent Trump appointees, has submitted an internal draft outlining proposed revisions to longstanding policy. These revisions would scale back restrictions on modifying national landmarks.
Specifically, the ACHP is looking to amend the rules that dictate Section 106, a portion of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 emphasizes that federal agencies must thoroughly evaluate the impact that amendments to historical landmarks might have before any changes can be made.
The language in the Section presently states that projects must “avoid, minimize or mitigate” negative affects: the proposed revision states only that “reasonable mitigation measures” must be taken.
The landmarks included in the places under the ACHP’s jurisdiction include the National Mall, and several sites that are historically significant to American Indian tribes. The proposed changes also emphasize that federal agencies would be able to launch their own projects, or give the go-ahead to private developers, without first receiving the public’s feedback.
“The proposal actually eliminates language that says: ‘The views of the public are essential to informed Federal decisionmaking in the section 106 process.,’” Charles A. Birnbaum, the CEO of the Cultural Landscape Foundation, told the Washington Post. “How un-American is that?”
During his presidencies, Trump has been committed to making aesthetic changes to the East Wing of the White House and the Kennedy Center, among many other federal buildings. Earlier this month, a Rhode Island senator announced that he had received a letter from whistleblowers stating that the Kennedy Center, in its haste to acquiesce to Trump’s demands, had made shoddy renovations that may need to be torn out.
With the ACHP’s proposed revision to Section 106, “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,” Marion F. Werkheiser, a founding attorney at Cultural Heritage Partners, told the Post.
Facts Only
* The ACHP submitted an internal draft outlining proposed revisions to policy.
* The revisions target Section 106 of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act.
* Section 106 currently requires federal agencies to "avoid, minimize or mitigate" negative effects from amendments to historical landmarks.
* The proposed revision states that only "reasonable mitigation measures" must be taken.
* Landmarks under ACHP jurisdiction include the National Mall and sites significant to American Indian tribes.
* The proposed changes suggest federal agencies can launch projects or allow private developers to proceed without public feedback.
Executive Summary
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has submitted an internal draft proposing revisions to policy concerning the National Historic Preservation Act, specifically Section 106. This section requires federal agencies to evaluate the impact of proposed changes to historical landmarks before making alterations. The proposed revision seeks to scale back these restrictions by limiting the requirement to only take "reasonable mitigation measures" instead of requiring that projects "avoid, minimize or mitigate" negative effects.
The jurisdiction under the ACHP includes sites such as the National Mall and areas significant to American Indian tribes. The proposed changes also suggest federal agencies could proceed with projects, either by launching them themselves or permitting private developers, without first obtaining public feedback. This shift is framed by critics who argue it eliminates public input from the decision-making process regarding landmark modifications.
Full Take
The shift described involves moving from a framework of comprehensive public consultation regarding landmark modification to one that prioritizes agency action, potentially sidelining public input in federal decision-making. This targets the mechanism by which historical preservation is currently governed, suggesting a trade-off between procedural caution and administrative efficiency. The focus on "reasonable mitigation" versus avoiding negative effects introduces an uncertainty about the scope of necessary public awareness. Furthermore, the context involving recent political appointments and reported issues concerning renovations at federal sites suggests that changes to these protocols are occurring within a specific political climate, raising questions about whose interests are being prioritized in the application of preservation law. The concern raised by observers is that this procedural change may lead to projects advancing without community knowledge, potentially eroding public oversight regarding nationally significant assets.
Bridge Questions: What is the demonstrated impact of shifting from an "avoid, minimize or mitigate" standard to a "reasonable mitigation measures" standard on actual historical outcomes? How does the definition of "reasonable" mitigation align with established standards for historical integrity when public input is removed? What are the long-term consequences for cultural sovereignty when federal agencies bypass traditional public feedback mechanisms for landmark projects?
Sentinel — Human
The text presents a chain of facts regarding proposed changes to historic preservation policy, interspersed with relevant public commentary, suggesting a grounded, evidence-based reporting style.