Update: August 28, 2026
Section 106 Is Under Threat. Here’s What We’re Doing About It.
When Docomomo US first wrote about the proposed changes to Section 106 in July, we warned that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) was considering sweeping changes that could fundamentally weaken one of the most important tools communities have to participate in decisions affecting historic places. Since then, the situation has become even more urgent—and the preservation community has come together in an unprecedented way to respond.
The ACHP voted on July 24 to advance its proposed revisions to the Section 106 regulations for further review. The changes would significantly reduce public participation, weaken the role of consulting parties, eliminate important elements of the existing consultation process, and give federal agencies substantially more control over decisions affecting historic properties and cultural resources.
For Docomomo US, these proposed changes represent an overreach. Section 106 is not simply a set of bureaucratic requirements. It is a mechanism for bringing communities, Tribes, preservation organizations, state and local governments, and federal agencies to the table before decisions are made. It is one of the ways that the public can have a meaningful voice in what happens to places that matter to them. And it is important to remember what Section 106 actually does: development still happens. But it can happen in a more responsible way.
A Broader Fight for Historic Places
Recently, Docomomo US participated in a meeting at the national offices of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) in Washington, DC, convened and led by Cultural Heritage Partners and joined by colleagues from across the cultural heritage and preservation community.
The meeting helped put the current fight over Section 106 into a broader context. We are confronting three interconnected threats:
1. The treatment of Washington, DC’s monuments and historic places.
The demolition of the East Wing of the White House, proposed alterations and now the possibility of demolition at the Kennedy Center, and threats to other nationally significant sites including the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and the Reflecting Pool demonstrate the extraordinary vulnerability of our shared cultural heritage when established protections and review processes are treated as obstacles rather than safeguards. These places belong not to any one administration, but to the American public, and their future should be shaped through transparent, accountable processes that respect their historic and cultural significance.
2. The assault on the Section 106 Process.
The proposed Section 106 regulations would dramatically change how the federal government consults with communities and considers historic resources. Preservation partners are closely monitoring the next steps in the regulatory process and preparing for the upcoming 30-day public comment period. Given the scope of the proposed changes and the concerns they have raised, litigation is also likely to follow.
3. Congressional efforts to streamline permitting by minimizing regulations.
The group discussed the broader push to reduce or eliminate regulatory requirements in the name of speeding development. We support responsible development and efficient government. But streamlining should not mean silencing communities, eliminating consultation, or removing the ability to identify historic places before they are lost.
Taken together, these developments make clear that this is about more than one regulation. It is about whether communities will continue to have a meaningful voice when federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects affect places with cultural and historic significance.
