NOLA.com8%
New Orleans preservationists fear major changes to national law protecting historic sites 74%
By Stephanie Riegel52%
7/25/2026, 9:00:00 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 18.3% saturation with 134 hits. Analysis detected 816 faulty-reasoning hits from 734 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.5% and a BS Rank of 74% (5,876 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.20% of the article peer group.
The Trump administration is seeking to loosen federal regulations intended to protect historic sites and landmarks, a move that local preservationists say could have significant negative consequences for New Orleans and other parts of the state.
The rules, part of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, require federal agencies to evaluate how new construction projects that are federally funded or built on federal land would affect historic places, giving local and tribal governments, preservationists and other concerned citizens an opportunity to weigh in.
But last week, the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, a little-known federal agency that advises the president and Congress on preservation issues, proposed sweeping changes to the law, which President Donald Trump has said is cumbersome and can hamper development.
“This is disastrous for New Orleans and Louisiana,” said Sandra Stokes, chair of advocacy for the Louisiana Landmarks Society.
“This is our cultural economy.
It puts everything at risk and at the whim of the aesthetic taste of the person with the pen.”
The Council voted to approve the changes Friday.
Changes would do away with a requirement that federal agencies try to avoid or minimize damage to historic architecture, neighborhoods and landscapes, and would eliminate the right of state and local governments to comment on proposed projects in their jurisdictions.
The changes also would mean that federal agencies don’t have to take into account adverse effects to significant places – even places as significant as the Grand Canyon, according to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which opposes the changes.
Among those serving on the 24-member advisory council is Louisiana Gov.
Jeff Landry, who was appointed by Trump to the board early this year and said he supports the changes.
“Historic preservation and economic development are not mutually exclusive,” said Landry, a staunch ally of Trump’s who also serves as his emissary to Greenland.
“When we modernize the process, we reaffirm a more predictable and efficient review and ultimately ensure preservation is considered without creating unnecessary delays for industry projects.”
Critics, however, say some 1.4 million historic sites around the country could be at risk if the proposed changes go into effect.
“Adoption of these proposed regulations would be inconsistent with the National Historic Preservation Act and would violate the Council’s own rules and procedures,” Elizabeth Merritt, deputy general counsel for the National Trust for Historic Preservation wrote in a July 21 letter to the administration.
“The proposed changes are also internally inconsistent and riddled with errors, likely to cause enormous regulatory confusion.”
Approval of the rule changes was not unexpected because 20 of the 24 seats on the advisory council were appointed by Trump or reserved for the heads of agencies he controls.
But the new rules still need to be promulgated, or put into effect, a process that could take months.
In the meantime, they will likely face court challenges from critics who say they are inconsistent with the National Historic Preservation Act.
A spokesperson for the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation said late Friday a draft of the new rules will now move to the interagency review process with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget before publication in the Federal Register.
In New Orleans, preservationists say countless projects have gone through a Section 106 review and come out the better for it.
Architect Robert Cangelosi, a partner with Koch and Wilson and specialist in historic preservation, recalled an effort to build a high-rise apartment complex that would have overshadowed the historic light house on Lake Pontchartrain.
It was ultimately defeated following a Section 106 review.
Stokes points to the salvation of the former Charity Hospital building on Tulane Avenue after Katrina, now slated to be converted by Tulane University into a biomedical hub and apartment complex, as another historic project that was saved because of Section 106.
“New Orleans wouldn’t be the New Orleans we know if it wasn’t for Section 106,” Stokes said.
“We hardly ever win but it gets us a seat at the table,” Stokes said.
“The purpose is to avoid or mitigate damage to historic properties, to look for alternatives and minimize damage.”
Landry said changes will be for the better.
“Section 106 was designed to ensure historic preservation is considered, not to create indefinite procedural hurdles that stall progress,” he said.
Speakers
6speakers58%attributed speech310writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
76%flagged-word coverageSandra Stokes
135 attributed words32% of attributed speech42% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.