The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is preparing to vote on proposed revisions to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act that would remove the requirement to consult with Native American tribes, make public comment on new projects optional, and redefine what kinds of properties can be considered historic. NPR obtained draft language of the proposed revisions in July 2026, and ACHP Vice Chair Travis Voyles sent an email to council members in mid-July 2026 asking them to vote on the new wording. NPR

President Trump appointed Voyles as ACHP vice chair to serve in an acting capacity. The ACHP chair position is vacant as of July 2026; President Trump has not nominated a new chair. Sara Bronin, former Senate-confirmed chair of the ACHP under President Biden, stated that President Trump controls 21 of the 24 members of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The White House and the Department of the Interior did not respond to NPR's request for comment on the proposed Section 106 changes. NPR

On July 21, 2026, the ACHP published a news item on its website confirming it is considering modification of the regulations that govern Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, citing recent publication in the Unified Agenda. The ACHP held its Summer Business Meeting on June 4, 2026, at the National Building Museum in Washington, DC. ACHP

News organizations began reporting the Trump administration's effort to rewrite federal historic-preservation rules governing Section 106 in mid-July 2026. The Washington Post reported on July 20, 2026, that critics warn the plan would narrow the public role in historic reviews. CNN reported on July 21, 2026, that the Trump administration is seeking to rewrite historic preservation rules to smooth the way for pet projects. The Atlantic published an article in July 2026 reporting that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will consider a vote to revise the rules governing Section 106. The Washington Post; CNN; The Atlantic

Greg Werkheiser, founding partner at Cultural Heritage Partners, criticized the proposed changes, saying the effort would make millions of historic and culturally significant sites 'less protected.' The National Register of Historic Places contains over 100,000 properties encompassing more than 1.8 million buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts. NPR

The proposed Section 106 revisions are the latest in a series of ACHP regulatory actions in 2026. The ACHP published a rule titled 'Rescission of Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)' in the Federal Register on June 5, 2026, which references Section 106 rulemaking to revise and update 36 CFR part 800. As of the Federal Register index page, the ACHP is described as proposing to rescind its regulations titled 'Historic Preservation Requirements of…'. On April 2, 2026, the ACHP published a 'Notice of Amendments to the Program Comment To Avoid Duplicative Reviews for the Wireless' in the Federal Register. On May 5, 2026, the ACHP published a 'Notice of Issuance of the Department of the Army Program Comment for Army Warfighting Readiness' in the Federal Register, referencing Section 106 regulations codified at 36 CFR part 800. Separately, on May 7, 2026, the ACHP announced a Section 106 training schedule including in-person and digital classroom courses along with webinars for June and September 2026. Federal Register; Federal Register; Federal Register; Federal Register; ACHP

The broader context here is a sustained effort by the ACHP under the current administration to streamline or eliminate regulatory steps in historic review, aligning with the NEPA rescission and program comments focused on wireless infrastructure and Army readiness. With Trump controlling 21 of 24 council seats and the chair position vacant, the ACHP has the votes to approve the Section 106 revisions. For practitioners, the operational effects would be immediate: Section 106 reviews traditionally trigger consultation with Native American tribes and solicit public comment. Making those steps optional, and redefining what qualifies as historic, would alter how federal agencies approach project planning and compliance.

In my view, the stakes for historic preservation practice are high. Section 106 is the primary mechanism requiring federal agencies to account for the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. If the draft revisions pass, the scope of what gets reviewed and who gets a voice in that process narrows. Federal agencies would have more latitude to move forward with projects without mandatory tribal consultation or public input, accelerating timelines but shifting how historic and cultural impacts are weighed in federal decision-making.