800 Protesters Tell Senate: Don't Gut Historic Preservation Law

Around 800 protesters gathered on the West Lawn of the US Capitol on Monday (9 November) to fight a Senate bill that would gut Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act — the clause that forces federal agencies to consult the public and tribal nations before harming historic sites.

Organisers estimated the crowd at roughly 800 people, including representatives from more than 100 tribal nations, sitting members of congress and leaders from the Association of African American Museums, the DC Preservation League, the American Institute of Architects and the Archaeological Institute of America. Their target: the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, or BAAJA — senate bill S.5653.

The bill's timing was, to put it mildly, brisk. California representative Jared Huffman told the crowd that 500 new pages of legislative text landed just 48 hours before the Senate was set to vote on Monday evening.

"They scheduled this vote for tonight to try to prevent something like this," Huffman told protesters. "To try to prevent the American people from having a say, from looking under the hood of this sweeping legislation and understanding what's actually in it, but you came anyway."

Huffman described the bill as "the most sweeping legislation we've seen on energy and environmental policy in decades". New Mexico congresswoman Melanie Stansbury was blunter, calling it a "dirty deal" — one drafted without tribal consultation or public input.

For over two hours, more than 15 speakers addressed the crowd. Many held signs reading "Nix 106", some illustrated with President Donald Trump's planned Triumphal Arch in flames.

What would the bill actually change?

Section 106, Title III of the National Historic Preservation Act currently requires federal agencies to consider the impact of federally funded building projects, and requires anyone receiving federal funds or permits to consult with tribal nations. S.5653 would make that consultation — tribal participation in decision-making — optional.

The bill goes further:

• It narrows which types of activity trigger a federal historic preservation review.
• It restricts the definition of what counts as a historic site.
• It removes consideration of sensory, indirect and cumulative effects on historic and sacred sites.
• It would let federal agencies effectively take over tribal and state historic preservation offices that miss the bill's limits and deadlines.
• It restricts what legal action people and organisations can take against the destruction of historic and sacred sites.

That last point is not hypothetical. The Senate vote coincides with Trump's push to build a 250ft-tall arch between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. On 5 November, protesters gathered at the proposed site and spoke against it at a National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) meeting. The NCPC approved the arch anyway; a Washington, DC judge then immediately blocked construction for 14 days.

"The court orders stopping construction of those projects would not be possible if this BAAJA legislation becomes law," Huffman said. "If this becomes law, the administration will use that in those pending court cases to make it much, much harder to stop Trump from advancing those and other vanity projects."

Whose history, whose land?

Greg Werkheiser, a leader of the Section 106 Coalition and co-founder of Cultural Heritage Partners, opened the rally. "We gather at the seat of American democracy, where the laws of this nation are written, to affirm one simple principle: the people deserve a voice in decisions that affect the places that we love," he said. "That is the promise we have come here today to defend."

For tribal leaders, the stakes run deeper than preservation bureaucracy. "For tribal nations, the fight is more than historic preservation," Arizona congresswoman Adelita Grijalva said. "It's about sovereignty. It's about self-determination. It's about the fundamental right to protect our ancestral homelands, culturally significant sites, and traditions that have existed since time immemorial."

Harry Antonio Jr, governor of the Pueblo of Laguna in New Mexico, framed Section 106 as a rare working channel for tribal governments. "Our sacred places are living places of prayer, our responsibilities to them do not end at the reservation boundary," he said. "You do not have to share our prayers to understand why those places deserve respect. Section 106 gives our governments a way to bring those concerns into federal decisions."

Jobs versus sacred places?

Senators backing the bill argue it would create more economic opportunities. Grijalva rejected the trade outright. "Economic development does not require sacrificing our history, our culture or our sovereignty," she said. "We can create jobs without destroying sacred places. We can create jobs without sacrificing Mother Earth, our land, our water."

Michigan congresswoman Rashida Tlaib warned the bill would fast-track projects with severe environmental consequences, including data centres and gas pipelines. "This bill strips away what little tools we already have to defend ourselves from corporate polluters," she said.

What happens next?

Speakers closed by urging protesters to call their senators, and implored the Senate either to vote the bill down or to table the vote until newly elected members of congress are sworn in this January. Whether 800 people on a lawn can slow a 500-page bill drafted in two days of darkness is the question the January swearing-in may answer.