The Trump administration is advancing a series of changes to federal regulations that critics say could significantly weaken historic preservation protections across the United States. Central to the controversy is a proposed monument in Washington, D.C., known as the “Arc de Trump,” which opponents argue would disrupt key vistas and damage the capital’s historic landscape.

The monument, a towering structure planned near the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, would alter a century-old open space that many consider one of the capital’s most important symbolic landscapes. The National Park Service recently highlighted that the proposed arch would block the view between these two landmarks and affect more than 35 other historical sites in the city.

This development coincides with the Trump administration’s efforts to revise Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, a provision that has long required federal agencies to assess and consult the public on the potential impact of projects affecting historic properties funded or approved by the federal government. The Section 106 process is credited with safeguarding numerous landmarks by encouraging negotiation and compromise rather than outright prohibition of changes.

However, recent proposed rules issued by the Trump-appointed Advisory Council on Historic Preservation would grant federal agencies more unilateral control over these decisions. The new guidelines would limit public input, shifting the language from “the views of the public are essential to informed Federal decision making” to granting agencies “exclusive discretion to determine the usefulness of public participation.” This change effectively allows agencies to curtail public involvement in decisions impacting historic sites.

Additionally, the proposed revisions would narrow the scope of Section 106 protections to include only properties with actual buildings or structures, exempting natural landscapes and sacred Indigenous sites. The rules also remove the requirement to start impact reviews early in planning phases and raise the threshold for what constitutes a significant adverse effect. For instance, federal personnel would no longer be obliged to visit threatened sites, and mitigation of negative impacts would only be necessary if it is “technically and economically feasible,” potentially allowing cost considerations to override preservation efforts.

These moves come amid other contentious changes in the capital’s historical landscape, including alterations to the Reflecting Pool area near the Lincoln Memorial, the painting of bronze statues gold with funds diverted from the National Park Service, and plans to paint the historically significant Eisenhower Executive Office Building in bright white paint—a move that preservationists say would damage its architectural integrity.

President Donald Trump’s record on historic preservation has faced scrutiny before. In New York, he dismantled Art Deco bas-reliefs at the Bonwit Teller building to construct Trump Tower despite earlier promises to preserve them. In Washington, a recent federal appellate court ruling found that congressional approval should have been obtained for renovations to the White House’s East Wing ballroom, a matter now likely to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Preservation advocates warn that if these regulatory changes are finalized, they could mark a significant rollback of protections designed to safeguard the nation’s cultural and historic heritage, extending beyond Washington to historic sites nationwide. Brent Leggs, executive director of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, has described the proposed shifts as “an unprecedented and deliberate attack” on the country’s civic and cultural inheritance.

The controversy underscores a broader tension between development priorities and historic conservation, raising questions about the future stewardship of America’s landmarks amid changing federal policies.