President Trump has introduced a plan for a 250-foot triumphal arch in D.C., sparking debate over historic preservation. This project must pass a historic preservation review before approval. Critics worry that weakening federal oversight of construction affecting historic sites jeopardizes preservation nationwide.
Jen Golbeck/AP hide caption toggle caption Jen Golbeck/AP
The discussion centers on Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. This section mandates federal agencies assess construction impacts on historic places. Agencies must identify potential ‘adverse effects’ and explore ways to ‘avoid, minimize, or mitigate’ them.
Greg Werkheiser, from Cultural Heritage Partners, voiced concerns that reducing protections endangers sites that define America. The National Register of Historic Places lists over 100,000 properties, covering structures, landscapes, and sites like burial grounds and neighborhoods.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, filled with Trump appointees, is pushing to weaken Section 106. Sara Bronin, former advisory council chair, notes Trump controls most council members, likely influencing the outcome.
Proposed changes redefine historic properties, make public comment optional, and remove consultation requirements with Native American tribes. Critics argue this gives the government unchecked authority over project impacts on historic resources.
Historic places like the Grand Canyon might lose protection. As constructions proceed, the public could lose input on preserving sites meaningful to them.
The revision needs several federal rulemaking steps, including a public comment period. A legal battle is anticipated, as Werkheiser warns of litigation to protect American history.
Scott Olson/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Scott Olson/Getty Images
Changes stem from post-WWII urban renewal and highway projects that demolished significant buildings and neighborhoods. The advisory council’s memo critiques current regulations causing confusion and delay.
Proposed revisions claim to balance evaluating historic effects and advancing federal projects. The protection scope would narrow, and consultation processes might condense into reports instead of thorough reviews.
Bronin warns unwary historic sites may face destruction, proposing the arch near Arlington Cemetery as a prominent example.
Allison Robbert/AP hide caption toggle caption Allison Robbert/AP
These changes could expedite Trump projects, diminishing third-party consultation, essential for knowledgeable preservation. Concerns extend beyond D.C. landmarks, with far-reaching implications.
Organizations like the National Trust for Historic Preservation and tribal representatives oppose the changes, criticizing both substance and rushed voting. Elizabeth Merrit calls for voting against the revisions to prevent widespread confusion and disrupted processes.
The existing Section 106 framework reportedly benefits developers by providing predictable outcomes. Bronin and Werkheiser urge public opposition through commentary and legislative actions.
Congress could intervene, possibly enacting legislation strengthening Section 106. Senate Democrats urged the advisory council to revise the proposal, collaborating with Tribes and states for improved processes without undermining rights.