Trump admin ends arch review, bypassing historic preservation law
Federal advisory board terminates Section 106 consultation after brief process, clearing path for arch approval by November.
What to know
- The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation terminated the Section 106 review—a legally required consultation process under the 1966 historic preservation law—after only two meetings with consulting parties in a process that typically spans months.
- Trump announced the arch will function as a military complex storing drones, ammunition, and housing snipers, a significant project change that legal experts say creates legal vulnerability and should trigger additional review.
- Preservationists and legal experts warn the termination will likely spark lawsuits and accused the administration of using spurious national security concerns to bypass environmental and preservation requirements.
- The move clears an approval pathway for the arch to reach final decision in early November, but is "almost certain to launch lawsuits over the legality of ending the review."
Donald Trump PresidentTravis Voyles Vice Chairman, Advisory Council on Historic PreservationCharles Birnbaum President, Cultural Landscape FoundationGreg Werkheiser Attorney, Cultural Heritage Partners PLLC
Doug Burgum Interior Secretary
How it unfolded 2 developments, newest first · click a bar or a number to jump articlesposts
-
2
Preservationists accuse administration of wrapping decisions in national security
Charles Birnbaum stated the administration is using national security as cover for expedited decisions, a pattern the Trump administration has repeatedly employed for pet projects.
“They wrapped this in 'national security' like they did everything else.”
— Charles Birnbaum -
1
Legal experts warn termination creates vulnerability to lawsuits
Greg Werkheiser, attorney with Cultural Heritage Partners, noted that if the arch is being converted to a military installation storing ammunition and explosives, the Secretary of Interior would be permitting an entirely different project than what agencies and the public have been reviewing, creating "a clear legal vulnerability."
“If we believe the president that he is turning his memorial arch into a military installation that stores ammunition and explosives, the Secretary of Interior will be permitting an entirely different project than the one the agencies and the public have been reviewing. That's a clear legal vulnerability.”
— Greg Werkheiser -
background
Trump announces arch will be military complex with drones and ammunition storage — Trump stated this week that the arch will function as a "top grade Military Complex" housing drones, snipers, and large quantities of ammunition—a significant change to the project plan that legal experts say necessitates additional review.
-
background
Preservationists condemn termination as inadequate process — Consulting parties—experts, state preservation officers, and municipal authorities—had only two meetings for the Section 106 review, far below the typical multi-month timeline for projects of this scope. The most recent meeting in early September ended without agreement as parties needed more information.
-
background
National Park Service report found arch will cause adverse effects — The NPS previously issued a lengthy report acknowledging that Trump's arch will unavoidably create "adverse effects" and harm historic sites, but the administration plans to proceed regardless.
-
background
Advisory Council terminates Section 106 review of arch project — The Advisory Council on Historical Preservation announced it would end the required consultation process assessing the arch's impact on historic sites. Instead of reaching agreement through the typical multi-month process, the council will invite consulting parties to verbally comment before the Interior Secretary makes a final decision.
Also covered reported alongside — the timeline has no entry for these yet
-
first by The Independent, 1d ago · also Independent UK, Yahoo
-
first by The Washington Post, 1d ago · also CNN, Washington Post
1 more headline
-
first by The New York Times, 1d ago · also NYT