For sixty years, one short section of federal law has stood between America’s historic places and the bulldozer. Now that protection is under threat, and the fight over its future is playing out in Washington and in Atlanta.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their projects on historic properties before they act. When federal money, permits, or approvals touch a project near a historic site, the agency must pause, consult with preservation officers, tribes, and the public, and seek ways to avoid or minimize harm. It is a procedural safeguard, not a veto, but it has saved countless landmarks, neighborhoods, and cultural landscapes.
What Is Being Proposed
In July 2026, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation voted to advance a notice of proposed rulemaking that would fundamentally rewrite how Section 106 works. The draft proposes sweeping changes: recasting Section 106 as purely “procedural” with no substantive preservation obligations, replacing the step-by-step consultation process with a single agency-prepared report, making public participation discretionary rather than mandatory, narrowing what counts as a historic property, and limiting review to direct physical effects while dropping consideration of visual, audible, and cumulative impacts.
Preservationists across the country have called the proposal devastating. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has been mobilizing its members to prepare for the public comment period, which is where the next battle will be fought.
Why This Matters in Georgia
Georgia’s historic fabric is rich and fragile. From the Sweet Auburn historic district to rural Rosenwald schools to the Gullah Geechee corridors of the coast, the places that tell Georgia’s full story depend on the protections Section 106 provides. Weakening the law would make it easier for federal projects to damage or destroy these sites with less consultation, less public input, and fewer obligations to consider alternatives.
The Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation, headquartered at the landmark Rhodes Hall in Atlanta, has been at the forefront of sounding the alarm. In September, the Trust’s President and CEO, W. Wright Mitchell, joined preservation professionals, archaeologists, and state officials on a panel at Georgia State University titled “Georgia History Under Threat,” examining exactly what the proposed revisions would mean for the state’s historic resources.
Mitchell, an Atlanta native who has led the Georgia Trust since 2023, has spent more than two decades in preservation leadership. Under his direction, the Trust continues its statewide advocacy, including its annual Places in Peril list, which this year highlighted sites ranging from the Boggs Rural Life Center in Keysville, a landmark of African American education, to the last surviving Civilian Conservation Corps camp in Georgia.
What You Can Do
The proposed rule must go through a public comment period before it can take effect. That is where ordinary citizens have the most power. When the comment period opens in the Federal Register, anyone can submit their views, and preservation organizations will be sharing guidance on how to make comments count.
Stay informed through the Georgia Trust at georgiatrust.org and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The places that hold our history cannot speak for themselves. That is what Section 106 was built to do, and that is what is at stake.
