National Trust for Historic Preservation: Return to home page

The proposed federal permitting reform legislation (Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026) includes changes that could significantly weaken protections for historic and cultural resources. As currently drafted, the bill’s preservation provisions would limit meaningful consultation with Tribal Nations and preservation stakeholders, narrow the scope of Section 106 review, expand unilateral federal agency authority, and constrain judicial review.

On October 21, 2026, staff from the National Trust for Historic Preservation held an in-depth discussion of the bill's most concerning provisions and their potential impacts on communities and historic places nationwide. This webinar featured a technical analysis of key legislative language, insights into the current political landscape, and practical guidance on advocacy strategies.

Links & Resources:

• Understanding And Responding To Federal Permitting Reform Slides (PDF)
• Principal Objections to the Historic Preservation Title of the BAAJA, S.5653 (PDF)
• National Preservation Partners Coalition Letter
• Section 106: Myth vs. Facts
• Advocacy Action – Tell your Senators: Oppose the bill as written and demand meaningful changes to its historic preservation provisions
• Story: Federal Permitting Reform Process 101
• Section 106 Threat – Resources
• Wall Street Journal Statement from National Trust
• Story: The Past, Present, and Future of the National Historic Preservation Act
• National Preservation Partners Coalition Letter
• Section 106: Myth vs. Facts
• Historic Preservation Defense Fund

Section 106 Regulations Revisions Links

• Live Stream the ACHP November Business Meeting (November 10)
• Draft Dear Colleague Letter (NCSHPO)

On October 21, 2026, a coalition of preservation organizations, including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, sent a letter to Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) regarding the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (S. 5653).

The National Trust works to protect historic and cultural resources through the National Historic Preservation Act, including Section 106, which ensures that federal agencies consider the effects of their actions on historic places and consult with Tribal Nations, states, local governments, and the public. We support making federal reviews more efficient and predictable, but not at the expense of these essential protections or the voices of the communities they serve.

We strongly support the letter’s concerns about the historic preservation provisions of S. 5653 as drafted. We believe Congress should revisit these provisions and work with the preservation community, Tribal Nations, states, and local governments to develop reforms that improve efficiency while maintaining meaningful consultation, accountability, and effective protections for historic and cultural resources.

The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) contains several provisions that would negate the core protections and purpose of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 by empowering federal agencies to make unilateral decisions without consulting state or local governments, Tribes, or the American public. The proposed legislation also contains multiple ambiguous provisions that would generate confusion and litigation, and lead to the loss of historic resources. This analysis focuses on provisions of greatest concern and is not an exhaustive review of all issues raised by the bill.

On October 15, 1966, President Lyndon Johnson signed the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). He said it was meant "to give part of our country back to its people."

Sixty years on, that is still what it does. The NHPA created the National Register. It created a preservation office in every state. And it created Section 106—the requirement that before a federally funded project damages a historic place, the people who live there get to be heard.

A permitting reform bill now moving through the Senate (S. 5653) would make much of that consultation optional. Agencies could end the conversation on their own. Fewer places would qualify for review. Fewer harms would count. And the courts would be a weaker backstop when agencies get it wrong.

For sixty years, preservation has worked because communities have a voice. Tell your Senators to keep it that way.

The National Trust opposes the bill’s Section 106 provisions and is demanding meaningful changes to its historic preservation provisions.

We support more efficient and predictable federal permitting, but we will not accept efficiency at the expense of silencing communities and the loss of our nation’s history.

Sixty years ago, Congress understood the value of giving ordinary Americans a seat at the table and passed the National Historic Preservation Act. Ask your Senators not lose sight of what your community’s history means to you.

Tell your Senators: Don’t discard our history by limiting the role of Section 106 and seek meaningful changes to the historic preservation provisions of the bill.

The National Trust believes Congress can make federal permitting more predictable and efficient without weakening the nation’s commitment to its historic places or diminishing the voices of the people who care for them. The National Trust urges lawmakers to work with the preservation community, Tribal Nations, states, local governments, and other stakeholders to revise these provisions so that they improve the Section 106 process rather than narrow its purpose.

In particular, the National Trust is urging lawmakers to:

1. Preserve meaningful consultation. Establish clear timelines for consultation while ensuring that federal agencies must meaningfully seek, consider, and respond to information provided by Tribal Nations, State Historic Preservation Offices, local governments, communities, and the American public.
2. Protect what counts as harm. Avoid redefining “adverse effect” in ways that exclude visual, atmospheric, and audible impacts from consideration.
3. Protect which projects get reviewed. Avoid narrowing “undertaking” to exclude projects that receive federal financial assistance, which is the category that covers much of what gets built in our communities.
4. Constrain unilateral agency authority. Require transparency and accountability when an agency determines that other considerations outweigh historic preservation rather than leaving that determination entirely to the agency’s discretion.
5. Maintain meaningful judicial review. Preserve an effective avenue for courts to ensure that federal agencies comply with the law.
6. Pair efficiency with capacity. Provide the resources, staffing, training, and technical assistance necessary for State Historic Preservation Offices, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, federal agencies, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to meet accelerated timelines.
7. Protect Tribal participation and cultural resources. Ensure that reforms recognize the unique role of Tribal Nations and provide meaningful opportunities for Tribal consultation, particularly concerning properties of traditional religious or cultural importance.