Federal Review Rules Face Potential Overhaul
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is weighing amendments to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act that could fundamentally reshape federal oversight of monuments and infrastructure. These proposed changes arrive as the Trump administration pushes to fast-track a 250-foot “United States Triumphal Arch” in Washington, D.C.’s Memorial Circle.
Expanding Agency Discretion at Historic Sites
The ACHP is currently reviewing draft amendments designed to grant federal agencies broader authority during preservation reviews. Agency documents cite a need to resolve “uncertainties, delays, and regulatory burdens” within the existing framework. If finalized, the new rules would shift the focus toward mitigation rather than the avoidance of harm, while simultaneously reducing the requirement for agencies to explore alternative designs or project locations.
Sara Bronin, a law professor at George Washington University and former chair of the ACHP, warns that these revisions could shrink the scope of protected properties and stifle public input. She anticipates immediate legal fallout, stating, “If adopted, these regulations will be challenged in court, and I doubt they will survive judicial scrutiny.”
Fast-Tracking the Triumphal Arch
The proposed granite structure, adorned with gilded winged statues, is advancing despite active opposition from preservationists and a lawsuit filed by Vietnam War veterans. Although monuments in the capital typically require congressional authorization, the Department of the Interior is using a 1925 plan for columns at Memorial Bridge to bypass new legislation.
The Commission of Fine Arts granted final approval in May, and the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) greenlit preliminary plans in early July via an 8–1 vote. A final NCPC vote is slated for September. To meet a goal of finishing construction by the end of the current term, the Department of the Interior is reportedly planning for 20-hour workdays.
Public Opposition and Procedural Friction
The project has triggered widespread backlash, with roughly 52 percent of Americans opposing the monument in a recent poll. Critics and architectural historians have dubbed the $100 million project a “garish tasteless eyesore” and a “McMonument.”
The National Park Service (NPS) has also come under fire for its management of the Section 106 process. After initially excluding several historic preservation groups from consulting-party status—a decision the National Trust for Historic Preservation called “an abuse of discretion”—the NPS eventually invited them to participate. However, critics argue the initial 10-day public comment window was far too short for a project of this scale.
Disrupting the Capital’s Monumental Landscape
An internal NPS assessment confirms the arch would adversely impact historic properties by degrading the character-defining views and spatial relationships of the capital. The site sits in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, locations linked by a deliberate axial relationship.
While the administration insists it is adhering to all legal mandates, critics fear the project establishes a dangerous precedent for bypassing standard review. The current Section 106 process, which previously guided the development of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, is intended to ensure thorough impact assessments before construction begins. For the arch, however, officials continue to insist the proposal will proceed “as-is.”
Related reading