Trump-era ruling threatens heritage sites globally, historic protections weakened by US advisory council

In a move with potentially far-reaching implications for heritage protection worldwide, a US advisory council dominated by Donald Trump’s allies has voted to relax a 60-year-old law safeguarding historic sites. The decision paves the way for federal projects that could jeopardise culturally significant locations across the United States, and potentially set a concerning precedent for other nations, including Australia.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), an independent US agency responsible for advising the President and Congress on historic preservation matters, approved the contentious changes in late 2020. The amendments dramatically alter the interpretation of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, a landmark piece of legislation designed to protect historic and archaeological resources from federal undertakings.

Eroding a Foundation of Preservation

NPR National reported that the new rules effectively weaken the ‘Section 106’ review process, a crucial component of the 1966 Act. This process previously required federal agencies to consider the effects of their projects on historic properties and to consult with state, tribal, and local stakeholders, as well as the public, before proceeding. Under the revised regulations, agencies gain significantly more discretion in determining what constitutes an “adverse effect” on a historic property, and crucially, when such consultation is necessary.

Critics argue that the changes shift the balance of power decisively towards developers and federal agencies, potentially sidelining environmental and heritage groups who have historically played a vital role in protecting sites. This move is seen by many as part of a broader Trump administration effort to deregulate and accelerate infrastructure projects, often at the expense of environmental and cultural protections.

A Global Chill on Heritage

While the direct impact of these changes is felt within the US, the symbolic weight of such deregulation from a major global power is not lost on heritage advocates in Australia. "Any weakening of historic preservation laws in a country like the United States sends a worrying signal globally," commented a spokesperson for a leading Australian heritage organisation, who wished to remain unnamed given the potential for politicisation. "It subtly chips away at the perceived importance of heritage protection, which can have ripple effects on how governments here in Australia approach their own heritage legislation." The spokesperson added that Australian heritage bodies often look to international best practices, and a regression in the US could be seen as a justification for similar relaxed approaches elsewhere.

Australia’s own heritage protection laws, such as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, have faced ongoing scrutiny and calls for reform. The US decision could embolden proponents of development over heritage, potentially leading to increased pressure on projects involving Aboriginal cultural sites or historically significant European settlements.

The Price of Progress?

The financial implications of eased regulations are significant. With fewer hurdles to clear and potentially less extensive environmental impact assessments, large-scale federal projects – from new highways to defence installations – could proceed more quickly and, ostensibly, more cheaply. However, the long-term cost to national identity and irreparable loss of cultural assets is incalculable.

Concerns have been raised by conservationists about the transparency of the revised process. There are fears that the public and affected communities will have reduced opportunities to voice objections or propose alternatives. Historic sites are not merely old buildings; they are tangible links to a nation’s past, encapsulating stories, struggles, and achievements that contribute to collective memory and identity. Many of these sites, were they to be in Australia, could have values exceeding tens of millions of dollars, not to mention their intrinsic cultural worth.

The Trump administration’s tenure saw numerous attempts to roll back environmental and cultural protections, but this particular move by the ACHP stands out for its direct assault on a foundational heritage law. Australian professionals in the heritage sector are now closely watching how these new rules will be implemented in the US, and what lessons, if any, might be drawn for the future of heritage protection on our own shores.