The Trump administration decided that demolishing historic landmarks was too slow, leading to a significant change in federal historic preservation regulations. Recently, the federal historic preservation agency chose to completely change its rules. This move endangers historic sites nationwide, contradicting the agency’s goal to preserve these places. As the last Senate-confirmed chair of this agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and as someone developing the National Preservation Atlas, I feel deeply concerned about what’s at risk.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation manages Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This process applies to about 120,000 federal activities each year, such as construction and permits for resource extraction on federal land. Agencies must assess the impact on historic properties before proceeding. However, the new rules shrink this protection, allowing the administration to approve more federal permits for projects like surface mining and fossil fuel networks.

The proposed rules protect only “geographically compact” sites, leaving many archaeological sites and lands important to Native communities unprotected. This could result in pipelines through vital historic areas like Gettysburg Battlefield. Worse, many projects now reviewed under Section 106 might be exempt, including those from state and local governments. This change may lead to widespread neighborhood destruction, reminiscent of the urban renewal era that originally prompted the National Historic Preservation Act.

Additionally, what constitutes harm to historic sites would be minimized. Factors such as noise or visual impacts may be ignored. For example, the planned construction of an arch might cause prolonged noise near Arlington National Cemetery, disrupting the area’s solemnity. The arch could also obstruct significant views, affecting the historic connection between the cemetery and D.C.’s monuments.

This proposal also undermines a core element of Section 106: mandatory consultations. Over the years, consulting various stakeholders, including state agencies and Indigenous tribes, has produced fruitful outcomes, protecting historic sites while saving time and resources. The proposed changes would allow agencies to bypass these consultations, engaging only a select few at the process’s conclusion. This marginalizes Indigenous tribes, violating sovereign rights afforded by treaties.

These changes respond to frustrations over procedural delays. Yet, there are better ways to streamline processes. As the council’s chair, I implemented reforms to simplify federal building conversions, enhance energy efficiency, and exempt Native Hawaiian restorations from review when beneficial. These were carefully designed to balance preservation with development needs.

The agency will soon invite public comments on these proposals. Anyone who values historic sites should consider responding, highlighting what’s at stake using resources like the National Preservation Atlas and National Register. Although comments may not halt final rule implementation, they can bolster litigation efforts by preservation groups.

We must not let the 250th anniversary year of the nation mark a turning point away from preserving our history.

Sara C. Bronin, Freda H. Alverson Professor of Law at George Washington University, founded the National Preservation Atlas and previously chaired the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.