Despite being a critical industry, cultural resource management archaeology has always depended on a slim legal mandate. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) calls upon government agencies to take historic properties into account for actions that are deemed “undertakings.” This means agencies must consider adverse effects to historic properties (e.g. sites, districts, buildings, structures, and objects) that are in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or are eligible for listing in the NRHP. Archaeologists, anthropologists, architects, historians, and architectural historians have been essential players in the Section 106 process, which is how significant historic properties are identified. This has been federal law since 1966 and a process for considering adverse effects to historic properties is also stated in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These two federal laws along with other laws like the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), the Antiquities Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) are amongst the universe of laws the people of our nation have established to identify and protect inadvertently damaging cultural resources. Several states also have resource protection laws that require archaeologists’ professional opinions as well as local communities to help identify significance. The entire CRM archaeology industry has arisen to help the government execute these laws.
Despite being the law of our land, there have always been forces that sought to abrogate our collective responsibility to be good stewards cultural, natural, and environmental resources. Time and time again, commercial interests have pushed our legislators to make changes to the NHPA, NEPA, as well as any other law they didn’t want to follow.
The story is always the same: Caring about resources is harder than not caring. It costs money. Companies don’t want to pay money but want to profit from our natural, cultural and environmental resources. Companies use “campaign contributions” and other kickbacks to convince politicians into bending the law for short term gain. The rest of us are left with the toxic aftermath of these decisions until we get so pi$$ed off that we react by protesting, boycotting, and (eventually) voting out the clowns that passed those shortsighted, malicious laws. Satisfied with the changes we caused, We the People get complacent again. The cycle repeats itself.
Last week, the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP) voted to approve revisions to Section 106 of the NHPA. As of today (07/24/2026) these changes have not yet been adopted but they have stirred up a hornet’s nest amongst preservationists and CRMers across the country because they seek to eviscerate the Section 106 process while also providing a means for agencies to unilaterally decide whether or not they have to fulfill the letter of the NHPA.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/21/politics/trump-national-preservation-act-rewrite-rules-vote
The ACHP is supposed to act like an arbiter for historic preservation matters; however, all but two of its members are appointed by the Executive Branch. Twelve of the current 24 members were appointed by the current regime so there’s a decent chance the suggested changes will be accepted by the ACHP.
What is exactly at stake?
I am among the many preservationists that think the NHPA has room for improvement, but the proposed changes are intended to neuter the Section 106 process and weaken democratic participation in heritage conservation. These rule changes are designed to silence the people. Our accomplices at Cultural Heritage Partners held a webinar on 7/19/2026 outlining the proposed changes as well as some actions we can all take to combat them:
https://culturalheritagepartners.com/war-room-for-threats-to-section-106
The draft of these rule changes are aptly summarized in Cultural Heritage Partners’ webinar. TL:DR, the rule changes include:
Making consultation optional: Consultation with tribes and State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) becomes optional. “Consultation” also becomes simply soliciting info from interested parties but no requirement to listen to this input.
Reducing the application of Section 106: Agencies can streamline what is subject to 106. The revisions provide more ways for agencies to simply decide not to do Section 106.
Reducing the size of what can be considered significant: Historic properties now need to have tangible remains and be “geographically compact.” Additionally, indirect effects no longer matter.
Reduce the role of SHPOs and THPOs: The proposed changes remove the process that SHPOs & THPOs can object to FONSIs and eliminates consultation on adverse effects.
Most importantly for CRMers, the recommended changes allow agencies to decide not to do CRM if they think it’s too expensive. Agencies can unilaterally decide that archaeology would get into the way of corporations making money and decide that the profit motive outweighs mitigating adverse impacts to cultural resources. Basically, the agency can decide that their corporate cronies don’t have to spend money on CRM and get away with it.
Conjunctivitis Junction
I’m not saying the NHPA is perfect. However, if these new edits are approved they will only cause infection in the existing system. The rule changes are sure to unleash a cavalcade of lawsuits just like all the other Executive Orders executed by this administration have done. These lawsuits not only waste the publics’ money but also cost time. The proposed changes are riven with inconsistencies, lack clarity, and have ambiguities that will only cause organizations, communities, and other developers to file lawsuits which will slow the Section 106 process, delaying the exact projects they are trying to fast track. They also mean administrators within agencies won’t agree upon how Section 106 should be applied, which will also cause internal complications. Because these rules are poorly considered and written, they will take several years to become common practice if they are approved at all. And all these protests and lawsuits will make the Section106 process slower and more expensive and will force agencies to devote more resources to executing the new rules—resources that they currently do not have. Additionally, these changes trample all over the right of states to adjudicate historic preservation within their boundaries.
One of the biggest disconnects with these rule changes conflict with federal historic preservation law. You know, the actual laws that companies and agencies are supposed to follow (upon pain of prosecution). A specific example are the instructions codified in 54 U.S. Code § 302303 – Responsibilities of State Historic Preservation Officer. This section of the United States Code of Laws says it is the responsibility of the State Historic Preservation Officer to “identify and nominate eligible properties to the National Register…; “cooperate with the Secretary [of Interior], the [Advisory] Council [for Historic Preservation], other Federal and State agencies, local governments, and private organizations and individuals to ensure that historic property is taken into consideration at all levels of planning and development, and; “consult with appropriate Federal agencies… on– (A) Federal undertakings that may affect historic property; and (B) the content and sufficiency of any plans developed to protect, manage, or reduce or mitigate harm to that property.” [The emphases and paraphrases in that passage are mine]
According to 54 U.S. Code § 302303, SHPOs oversee identifying and nominating eligible properties. SHPOs are also supposed to cooperate with State agencies, local governments, private organizations, and individuals at all levels of planning and development. Critically, SHPOs are supposed to CONSULT (Not acquiesce. Not capitulate. Not rubber stamp. And not coopt or seize control from agencies). SHPOs are supposed to consult with Federal agencies. Consultation in historic preservation law means an active, good-faith data and opinion-sharing process that seeks to come to an agreement on how a project might affect historic properties. The ACHP itself suggests starting consultation early in the decision-making process to avoid complications, miscommunications, and ambiguities—the exact things these rule changes will create by trying to void the government’s mandate to consult with its people. There are probably other ways these rule changes conflict with federal law (like the duties of the federal government to federally-recognized Native American tribes), but I just saw this codified consultation mandate to be the most glaring one.
Basically, these rule changes attempt take us away from the existing system we have all known for decades into uncharted waters where a greater number of inadvertent discoveries, destroyed sites, and irreversible adverse impacts can be expected. They are also almost certainly going to cause delays, headaches, and cost overruns since nobody is going to know how to do their job anymore. It will also cause the federal government to lose more lawsuits since the rule changes conflict with actual federal laws.
These proposed changes remind me of what it’s like to have pinkeye. You can still see. You can still function, but your eyes are greatly impaired. They still work but they hurt and are infected. The blood vessels in the membranes of your eyes become inflamed and infected. The pus and itching are caused by the bacterial infection afflicting your eyes; the discharge is your body’s way of trying to cope with the conjunctivitis infection. Regardless, the whole thing is uncomfortable and gross.
These proposed Section 106 rule changes are like the bacterial conjunctivitis that causes pinkeye. The response to this regulatory conjunctivitis will be akin to the oozing, pus-filled discharge and red, itchy symptoms that happen when your eyes have a bacterial infection. Every state is going to try to get rid of this infection since they won’t be able to fulfill their legal mandate while it exists. Antibiotics are a great way to rid the body of the bacteria that causes pinkeye. Direct action combined with political activism is a great way to rid the body politic of the infections that cause regulatory conjunctivitis like these proposed Section 106 rule changes.
With Heritage So Rich
These misguided changes are already pi$$ing people off. CRMers and preservationists are mad right now. We are already planning our responses. Developers, engineers, and construction companies are going to get mad tomorrow when their projects are delayed by these rule changes that are guaranteed to cause complications and confusion. They’re also going to have to respond. Communities are going to be angry too when their heritage sites and historic properties—places that are part of their collective patrimony and are sources of cultural meaning—start getting bulldozed for random pet projects that will benefit a small number of disconnected, wealthy patricians. Whether the rules pass or not, I hope this festers into a much larger uprising against top-down politics.
Today’s politicians seem to forget that we got laws like the NHPA and NEPA because of widespread, deep seated rage over construction projects that bulldozed large swaths of cultural sites, open spaces, and historical neighborhoods. By the 1960s, the Cross-Bronx Expressway, demolition of Pennsylvania Station, demolitions in downtowns like the one in Boise, Idaho, and dozens of other urban renewal projects across the United States cultivated an entire generation of preservationists that pressured local legislators (e.g. mayors, city councils, and representatives) to do something to protect America’s threatened heritage resources. This anger spread throughout all sorts of disparate demographics: elders, housewives, parents, teenagers, wealthy glitterati, both political parties, sportsmen, fishers, property-owners, renters, Black, white, and every other colorized group—Pretty much everyone had something to say about saving heritage sites and natural spaces. And they told their legislators in town halls, public referenda, letters, protests, and lawsuits.
It worked. Local politicians worried about losing their jobs; their hopes of rising up in the political machine could be dashed to pieces over urban renewal. Town halls were flooded with activists that wanted to stop construction projects. Neighborhoods were using the NHPA to establish historic districts, making large areas of the urban landscape immune to development. Developers saw delays, redesigns, and incomplete projects. Companies were on track to lose money and contracts.
The 1966 report With Heritage So Rich marks the watershed moment when preservation became an issue of national importance. The small, local demonstrations and protests against destruction had coalesced into a political movement that could no longer be ignored. Soon afterward, Congress passed the NHPA and the NEPA in 1969. These laws forced agencies to account for the adverse effects construction projects were causing all across the country. For over 60 years, the economy and government have adjusted to a world where there are at least nominal protections for natural and heritage resources. This is the world in which CRM archaeology was born.
But the government and businesses seem to have forgotten for whom they are working. They are trying to go back to the world that prompted all this outrage from the American public. They are biting the hand that truly feeds them and these Section 106 rule changes are just another example of them trying to sneak something past us for their own gain. Most importantly, they seem to have forgotten what happens when U.S. citizens get pi$$ed off. Companies are relying on all those bribes to keep the politicians in their pocket, but politicians are still elected by the citizenry, and they care more about keeping their jobs than helping the wealthy launder money through “donations.” Already we’re seeing communities vote out some of these out-of-touch politicians that have failed to listen to their constituencies. Both liberals and conservatives are unhappy with the current cohort of politicians at every level and we’re seeing the effects.
The best thing that could happen from these rule changes to the NHPA is that it would push people and companies over the edge. This could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Communities could start voting out local legislators that allow heritage sites and natural resources to get destroyed to make way for energy projects and data centers that only make utility prices and every other product more expensive. They could force city councils, county commissions, and state legislatures to create new preservation laws that are even more stringent than the NHPA. Companies could see these projects delayed indefinitely, losing money because they cultivated a rampaging populace that is no longer willing to stay subservient to Wall Street. Worst of all for Wall Street—Americans could start buying land and establishing land trusts that include cultural and natural resources while also passing local regulation that restrict all sorts of construction within proximity to the People’s Land. Private property laws are even stronger than cultural resource ones. A populist movement like this could ensure prosperity for millions of Americans who would benefit from creating land trusts where they own the land, including archaeological sites and natural resources, managing the trusts in the best interest of future generations. Buying sites outright could also save thousands of historic properties just like the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Archaeological Conservancy do today. This is what I hope happens if rule changes like these get passed. I hope this is the thing that starts the silent, peaceful revolution we so badly need.
In the meantime, however, I hope these rule changes don’t get passed and the status quo is maintained. The least disruptive thing to do is to keep doing what we’ve been doing. The government is currently working on streamlining the NHPA and NEPA. The proposed rule changes will complicate these efforts that are currently underway in Washington D.C. I know there are some companies out there that will try to benefit from the short-term confusion that will happen if these changes are approved but those companies open themselves up to all sorts of expensive legal opposition that is not in their best interests. Overall, the government, economy, and the rest of the citizenry will be harmed by the legislative conjunctivitis that will happen if these proposed rules are implemented.
What should we do?
You are an adult. You don’t need to listen to me. If you care about archaeology, make the leap beyond slacktivism and start doing what you can to protect historic preservation laws and change our current political landscape:
Get educated: Read the NHPA, NEPA, as well as any and all state and local preservation regulations. Know what is in them. I know it’s boring but you’re and adult.
Find your tribe: Find your people in real life. I don’t mean a Native American tribe (unless you’re Native). You can start online but meet up in person with other preservationists in your area. Learn what’s going down in your city. Be in the know about what sites are threatened and what local people are doing to protect them.
Prepare your opposition letter: Right now, the rule changes are kicked back to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review before a 30-day comment period opens. However, they can use the current faux energy “emergency” Executive Orders to do an end run around the 30-day comment period, saying consultation is detrimental to the functioning of the United States and making the suggested changes “permanent” without our input. A tsunami of lawsuits will eventually force them to reconsider these changes but in the short-term Section 106 can be abrogated/curtailed.
Whatever happens be ready to send a letter to your legislators, representatives, governor, attorney general, local conservationists, communities that might care, basically anyone you think will listen. Let them know how you feel and that you will join campaigns against them if they let this stand.
In your letter: 1) Be specific—Write about a specific aspect of the proposed changes and the impacts you can foresee. 2) Be brief—One page should be enough. 3) Suggest an alternative path—We all know laws were designed to be improved. Suggest changes that can improve upon the current system. 4) Be original—Write your own letter. Don’t click on some change.org spam letter. We want political offices to be flooded with letters at all levels from concerned individuals. A generic “click here to care” letter isn’t going to make the same impact as a mailbox stuffed with paper letters from everyday people.
Make sure to repeatedly mention lost money and state’s rights in your letter. Also, let them know you forsee lawsuits galore.
Mobilize: The threat to Section 106 is one of many threats caused by our government, which is owned by corporate interests and billionaires. But all true power lies with the people. A clownish minority of citizens voted for this; the silent majority of us can take our country back if we act.
Make your presence known through direct action, which is a combination of using economic and populist power to directly achieve goals. Direct action acknowledges the political system but seeks to go through or around it; bypassing normal channels and solving problems in novel ways. In the past, this has meant protests or blockades or disrupting everyday life to make your cause known. That is how they used to do it. Those 1960s protests and riots are old news. They are cooked. They no longer work like they used to. We can protest until our shoes fall apart and it won’t change a single thing because our protests, even riots, do not affect their bottom line or the control they have over the political system. And those protests never changed the mindset of the protestors. The system has adapted to absorb our protests. We push but never question the system behind the inequality that causes this violence. Plus, old school direct action only makes other citizens hate us for disrupting their lives. The Black Lives Matter protests showed me that our successes can produce a severe backlash that mitigates many of the gains we accomplished while making the opposition more politically powerful. Traditional protests give them a target that they can use to further their platform.
We are smarter than that. We can learn from our previous efforts. We don’t have to march in the streets to create change, unless you want to. We can use the things that actually work (e.g. boycotts, divestment, property ownership, noncompliance, ect.), but we also need to cultivate a mindset that allows us to envision the world in which we want to live. Liberating our minds can show us how to get out of this trap.
I am suggesting you act but also change the way you think so that your very existence is non-violently lived in opposition to the forces you do not agree with. Cultivate choiceless awareness which forces you to recognize your shared connection with the entire world—our shared humanity. Remold your mind to go beyond the divisiveness that the current system needs to exist. Left/right. Red/blue. Liberal/conservative. Capitalist/communist. Those divisions are not real. They are manufactured to keep us divided and these misguided policies are coming from minds that have been warped by this dialectic. Recognizing those differences keeps you from understanding that the same folks causing us harm are also part of our shared humanity. What they are doing is also what you are doing since capitalism dominates our society. You cannot participate in this system without causing harm so stop thinking you are separate from this phenomenon. If you recognize them as the enemy, you are playing into their game.
Once you realize that you are part of what is happening, you can start remodeling your mind to escape the dialectic. Build a life so that the food you eat, the places you frequent, the company you keep, the company you work for, how you get to work, what you think about other people, your conceptualization of the world—all of it stands in opposition to what the media, politicians, religion, and all other organizations say life is all about. Build a new just, inclusive, ecomutualist world in your mind; act in alignment with that world. Think differently. Act differently. Question everything with playful awareness. Don’t be afraid to boycott companies that promote legislation like these misguided changes to Section 106. Don’t be afraid to lead campaigns to remove the legislators and bureaucrats that allowed this and myriad other anti-democratic laws to get passed. Don’t be afraid to build a land trust in your area so you can build a pathway towards affordable housing for generations to come. Let this be the thing that helps you become the person you already are inside. Then use direct action to help create the kind of preservation regulations you’d like to see.
These Section 106 changes reveal just how vulnerable our industry really is. Fortunately, a majority of Americans care about heritage sites, history, and archaeology. They like museums and knowing the truth about our shared heritage. These changes will limit our participation in the Section 106 process but that does not keep us from enacting our own cultural resource management laws at the local and state level that do better than what the feds are doing. We can use everything we’ve learned about the process to make something better, rightsized for our own communities. They can try and limit our participation, but they cannot keep us from creating the world in which we want to live.
I’d like to hear from you. Write a comment below or reach out to me if you have anything to say.
Having trouble finding work in cultural resource management archaeology? Still blindly mailing out resumes and waiting for a response? Has your archaeology career plateaued and you don’t know what to do about it? Download a copy of the new book “Becoming an Archaeologist: Crafting a Career in Cultural Resource Management” Click here to learn more.
Check out Succinct Research’s contribution to Blogging Archaeology. Full of amazing information about how blogging is revolutionizing archaeology publishing. For a limited time you can GRAB A COPY FOR FREE!!!! Click Here
“Resume-Writing for Archaeologists” is now available on Amazon.com. Click Here and get detailed instructions on how you can land a job in CRM archaeology today!
Small Archaeology Project Management is now on the Kindle Store. Over 300 copies were sold in the first month! Click Here and see what the buzz is all about.
Join the Succinct Research email list and receive additional information on the CRM and heritage conservation field.
Get killer information about the CRM archaeology industry and historic preservation.