Overview:
The Trump administration's proposed Section 106 changes would weaken tribal consultation and reshape how federal agencies protect sacred and historic places.
Opinion
For more than three decades, tribal consultation has been a cornerstone of the federal historic preservation process under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
The Trump administration is now seeking to weaken that framework and roll back decades of progress.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the independent federal agency responsible for administering the Section 106 process, is considering sweeping changes to its regulations. Twenty of the council’s 24 members are Trump administration appointees, officials or designees. On July 24, the council voted 16-5, with two abstentions, to advance the proposed revisions.
Tribal leaders and historic preservation organizations warn that the proposed changes would weaken consultation requirements and undo decades of progress in recognizing tribal sovereignty and protecting places of cultural and religious significance.
When Congress amended the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992, it required federal agencies to consult with federally recognized Tribal Nations when federal projects or decisions could affect places of religious or cultural significance. The amendments also established the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer program, giving tribes greater authority to protect their own historic resources.
Congress also recognized that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to tribes may qualify for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
The resulting regulations established the consultation framework federal agencies still follow today, requiring tribes to be consulted early and giving them a formal role in identifying and protecting culturally significant places.
For more than three decades, Section 106 has given Tribal Nations a meaningful voice in federal decisions affecting sacred sites, ancestral landscapes, burial grounds and other places central to Native culture and identity.
The ACHP voted July 24 to advance the proposal. After federal review and public comment, the council could adopt the changes. Until then, the current regulations remain in effect.
Opponents say the proposed changes would:
- Eliminate requirements for federal agencies to avoid or minimize harm to historic properties.
- Reduce or eliminate consultation requirements with tribal nations regarding culturally significant sites.
- Remove notification and comment opportunities for state and local governments.
- Make public participation optional rather than required.
- Narrow or redefine what qualifies as a “historic property.”
The Association on American Indian Affairs (AAIA) – the longest serving national Native non-profit – is in unmistakable opposition to the ACHP’s proposed revisions to the Section 106 regulations.
The AAIA said: “These proposed revisions are being presented as efforts to modernize and streamline federal permitting; however, they are far from that. In practice, they would fundamentally restructure the Section 106 process by replacing meaningful consultation with agency-controlled documentation, expanding agency discretion, and delegating federal consultation responsibilities to non-federal project applicants, and reducing the role of Native Nations in decisions affecting their own cultural heritage.
Rather than strengthening the federal government’s relationship with Native Nations, these revisions diminish Native participation in ways that threaten both the integrity of the consultation process and the protection of irreplaceable cultural heritage. The proposal represents a significant departure from the structured consultation process that has long defined Section 106 and would systematically remove Native Nations from meaningful decision-making.”
Tribal consultation must be defended. Indian Country cannot allow the Trump administration to reverse decades of progress by diminishing tribal consultation.
Congress, federal agencies, preservation organizations, state governments, tribal leaders, and the American people must reject these changes and recognize what is at stake.
The sacred places, ancestral landscapes, and cultural resources that tribal nations fight to protect are not just part of Native history—they are part of America’s shared heritage. Once they are destroyed, they can never be restored.
For countless generations, tribal nations have honored their sacred responsibility to protect the lands, waters and places that define who we are as Indigenous Peoples.
The federal government has a responsibility, too: to uphold its trust and treaty obligations, honor the government-to-government relationship, and engage Tribal Nations as sovereign governments—not as an afterthought in a permitting process designed for convenience over consultation.
The decisions made today will determine whether future generations inherit a nation that respects its promises to Tribal Nations or one that sacrifices irreplaceable cultural heritage in the name of expediency.
Thayék gde nwéndëmen – We are all related.
