Before a federally funded or permitted project moves forward, who gets a say in whether it could damage historic places?
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 allows Tribal Nations, preservation officials, and the public to help answer that question. It requires federal agencies to consider how their projects could affect historic properties before making final decisions. That includes projects the government funds, permits, or carries out, such as highways and energy infrastructure.
The review considers places listed in, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places. A place does not have to be on the register already to qualify. Section 106 does not guarantee that a place will be preserved or give communities an automatic veto over development. It requires agencies to consider potential harm and provide an opportunity for review and comment.
For Tribal Nations, this process reaches beyond reservation boundaries. Federal agencies must consult with federally recognized Tribes when a project could affect historic properties of religious or cultural significance to them, including places on ancestral lands outside present-day Tribal lands. This consultation recognizes Tribes’ knowledge of places whose significance may otherwise be overlooked.
In practical terms, agencies identify historic properties, assess potential damage, and explore ways to avoid, reduce, or address that harm. Consultation can help shape those decisions while alternatives are still possible.
Now, proposed changes to federal permitting have raised concerns about the future of that process. Permitting reform means changing how the government reviews and approves projects, often to speed up decisions.
In the commentary “Don’t Gut Our Nation’s History in the Name of Permitting Reform,” National Trust for Historic Preservation President and CEO Brent Leggs argues that faster approvals should not come at the expense of community voices.
The National Trust opposes historic preservation provisions in the proposed Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026. The organization warns that the bill would narrow which projects and impacts receive review, weaken consultation, and give federal agencies greater authority to end the process. Those are concerns about proposed changes, rather than a description of Section 106’s existing requirements.
For Native communities, the stakes include whether Tribal knowledge can meaningfully influence decisions about culturally significant places before damage occurs.
Source list
- Brent Leggs, National Trust for Historic Preservation: “Don’t Gut Our Nation’s History in the Name of Permitting Reform”—the commentary you provided, explaining the organization’s position.
- Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Section 106—the federal agency’s explanation of the review process.
- ACHP: Guidance on Assistance to Consulting Parties—explains Tribal consultation, including on ancestral lands.
- National Trust: Opposition to Key Provisions of the Permitting Reform Bill—details the organization’s concerns and changes it supports.
