Trump appointee-heavy panel moves to shrink historic project reviews
A federal council is voting on changes that critics say would curb public, state and tribal input on projects affecting historic places.
By Deshawn Carter · Sports Writer
3 min read
A federal historic-preservation council packed with Trump administration appointees is voting this week on a proposal that would sharply reduce outside review of projects that could affect historic sites, according to multiple sources cited by CBS News.
The Advisory Council for Historic Preservation is considering changes to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the review process that requires federal agencies to weigh how their projects may affect historic properties before work goes ahead.
Twenty of the council’s 24 members are Trump administration appointees, according to CBS News. The panel currently has no chairman, a post that requires a presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. CBS News also reported that one appointee appears to have left the council in June, while three members are ex-officio representatives from national preservation groups.
What the proposal would change
Section 106 has been in place for 60 years. Under the existing process, if a federal project could affect a historic property, the council, state preservation officials, Tribal Historic Preservation officers, other relevant parties and the public can take part in the review before the project advances.
Under the proposal reviewed by CBS News, the definition of a historic property would be revised. Review by State Historic Preservation Officers would become optional rather than required, and public comment would no longer be mandatory.
CBS News reported that the plan would also restrict the ability of Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations to object to projects that may affect their land.
Experts cited by CBS News warned that the changes, if adopted through a final rule, could give the federal government more room to build or renovate around historic sites with less oversight. The changes would apply to future projects.
Trump projects add political heat
The issue lands as President Trump has construction plans in the Washington region. CBS News reported that his planned ballroom addition to the East Wing of the White House is not covered by the rule because it is on White House grounds.
Trump’s plan for a triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery is undergoing a Section 106 review, according to CBS News. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a nonprofit preservation group, has raised concerns that the process for that project has moved too quickly.
Rob Nieweg, the trust’s senior vice president, told the National Capital Planning Commission earlier this month that the group was concerned about “the limited nature of the consultation, the rushed timeline, the exclusion of many parties (including the National Trust) from the consultation process, and the failure to consider less harmful alternatives.”
Preservation groups push back
In a letter obtained by CBS News, the National Trust for Historic Preservation opposed the council’s move, saying it would “eviscerate the preservation of our shared civic and cultural heritage in the United States.” The group said it would take legal action to seek withdrawal of the proposal.
Brent Leggs, the trust’s CEO, said in a statement that if the proposal is implemented, federal agencies would no longer have to avoid or reduce damage to historic sites and landscapes, or seek public comment on federal projects affecting historic places.
The National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, which sits on the council, said the proposal would weaken the role of Tribal Nations in the review process and undercut protections for sacred places.
Ira Matt, the association’s executive director of Indigenous Diplomacy and Federal Relations, called the proposal “an affront to Tribal sovereignty.” He said any move to reduce tribal voices or disregard sacred places, traditions and practices would violate the federal government’s trust and treaty responsibilities.
The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers also objected. Erik Hein, the group’s executive director, told CBS News it was “baffling” that the agency overseeing Section 106 appeared to be making it easier to destroy historic places during the nation’s semiquincentennial.
The White House and Interior Department declined to comment, CBS News reported.
This story draws on original reporting from CBS News.