The federal permitting process is one of the most consequential and debated areas of federal policy impacting historic preservation today. Ongoing permitting reform efforts are seeking to modify how the federal government reviews, coordinates, and approves a wide variety of infrastructure, energy, transportation, broadband, water, and other projects that require federal funding, permits, or approvals.

The conversations have attracted the attention of key players including Congress, the White House, federal agencies, state and Tribal governments, industry, environmental organizations, historic preservation stakeholders, and the general public given the potentially wide-reaching implications of proposed reforms.

Depending on how reforms are structured, changes could impact project timelines, interagency coordination, protection of natural and cultural resources, public participation, and compliance with numerous laws including the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

2.

Who is involved?

Federal permitting reform efforts involve a wide range of stakeholders, each with their own roles, responsibilities, and voices to contribute towards this critical policy issue. The complex permitting process is not controlled by a single federal agency or congressional committee and multiple parties are simultaneously engaged in distinct ways:

• Congress is responsible for writing laws and amending federal statutes, such as NHPA, that affect federal permitting. Given that the issue of permitting reform touches multiple policy areas, jurisdiction is spread across multiple congressional committees including the Energy and Natural Resources and Environment and Public Works committees in the Senate, as well as the Natural Resources, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Energy and Commerce committees in the House. If proposals impact Tribal consultation, sovereignty, or Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs), committees and subcommittees like Senate Indian Affairs may become involved.
• Federal agencies implement permitting reviews and are responsible for complying with existing laws. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), for example, develops and oversees the regulations implementing Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800) and issues guidance, provides training, and participates in consultations on selected projects. When projects constitute a federal undertaking, over a dozen federal agencies are responsible for carrying out the Section 106 process in order to initiate consultation with key stakeholders, identify historic properties, and assess potential effects of those projects.
• Preservation offices are deeply engaged in the Section 106 consultation process before federal agencies reach decisions on federal projects. Among other things, State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) consult with federal agencies, review federal undertakings and provide expertise on historic resources. THPOs of federally recognized Tribes provide a similar role to SHPOs and represent tribal preservation interests.

Given that federal undertakings and projects have the potential to impact communities nationwide, the federal permitting reform process also draws in participation from historic preservation organizations, Certified Local Governments (CLGs), property owners, community organizations, and the general public.

3.

Where and When are permitting reform decisions taking place?

Deliberations about the federal permitting reform process are taking place simultaneously at multiple levels of government and beyond. Renewed attention to permitting reform in Congress originated in the 118th Congress (2023-2024) where over 20 legislative proposals were introduced by lawmakers that began a bipartisan exploration of how to move forward. While an agreement was not reached, momentum carried forward into the current Congress.

A series of House and Senate committee proceedings on permitting reform began in 2025 as lawmakers examined related issues that could be incorporated into future legislative proposals. This included an October 2025 hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that focused on the NHPA and its Section 106 review process as part of a conversation about how historic preservation fits into broader permitting reform efforts.

Several pieces of legislation related to permitting reform, including the SPEED Act passed by the House, have advanced through various stages of the legislative process and congressional negotiations and legislative drafting continue to move forward as lawmakers seek a broad, bipartisan legislative package. Congress has repeatedly signaled their intention to reach a bipartisan agreement and release legislative text during the 119th Congress, however negotiations are still underway.

In the meantime, the ACHP announced in February 2026 the launch of a comprehensive review of Section 106 regulations to evaluate opportunities to update and clarify how Section 106 is implemented. Despite formal requests to participate in the decision-making process, several ACHP members were informed in July that proposed reforms to Section 106 were drafted without the contributions of key preservation stakeholders, and they were provided a seven-day window for an initial response.

The National Trust and our partners are committed to informing the preservation community and general public of the unacceptable provisions of this proposal that seek to undermine the NHPA, meaningful public and Tribal participation, and the future preservation of our nation’s irreplaceable historic resources.

4.

What are key issues that impact historic preservation?

As policymakers have moved forward on federal permitting reform proposals and reforms, several key themes have emerged that have the potential to impact preservation policy including changes to environmental review, historic preservation review, consultation, agency coordination, judicial review, and permitting timelines.

For the preservation community, permitting reform warrants close attention given that any changes to the federal review processes can directly impact how historic properties are identified, evaluated, and considered during project planning under Section 106 and beyond.

The National Trust continues to engage with Congress and preservation partners regarding emerging proposals, including submitting testimony for key congressional hearings and sharing perspectives with agency officials and congressional staff. These priorities include:

5.

Proposed Reforms and Jurisdiction

Permitting reform encompasses a wide range of proposals, and not every proposed change is made by the same entity. Understanding who has the authority to make these changes helps clarify where reform discussions are taking place and how different proposals may move forward.

6.

How can you take action?

We need your help to ensure that the perspective of the preservation community is heard during federal permitting reform efforts!

• Learn more. Utilize the Section 106 and NHPA resources linked to below and visit the ACHP for additional educational materials and trainings.
• Stay connected. Sign up for the National Trust newsletter to receive updates on this and other preservation issues.
• Share your story. What is your experience with a successful Section 106 project in your community? Share those and other ACHP success stories with policymakers to illustrate how Section 106 supports successful project delivery and preservation.

We will continue to share updates and developments on federal permitting reform as part of our advocacy webinar series and content within other channels.