What Happened?

If you live near a historic site or belong to a Tribal community, a Senate bill could reduce the federal review process meant to protect those places before construction or energy projects move forward. The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) of 2026 is pending in the Senate, according to a Legis1 review of a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. ​

BAAJA would rewrite Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), narrowing which projects face review. The bill would make several specific changes:

  • Narrower project coverage: Only projects with "substantial" federal control would face review, cutting out some currently covered undertakings.
  • Tighter definition of harm: The bill would remove "indirect" effects and "feeling" from the definition of an adverse effect on a historic property.
  • No public involvement: BAAJA would eliminate required public participation during the Section 106 review process.
  • Review deadlines and limited court remedies: The bill would create new timelines for completing reviews and restrict what courts can order if the process is violated.

Why Does it Matter to Me?

BAAJA would raise annual funding for the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) from $150 million to $200 million per year for fiscal years 2027 through 2036, an increase of $50 million per year over the level set by P.L. 119-74, enacted Jan. 23.

The bill would also create a new competitive grant program for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), authorized at $20 million annually for fiscal years 2027 through 2030.

State historic preservation programs would face evaluations at least every two years under BAAJA, twice as often as the current four-year interval. States that do not cooperate with federal reviews could lose their HPF grants, a federalism concern the CRS flagged.

Both Sides, Now

Supporters, including a majority press release from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, say BAAJA "will strengthen American energy security by accelerating the permitting process for critical energy and mineral projects across the United States."

Opponents argue that narrowing Section 106 review and removing required public involvement could leave historic places, including Tribal cultural resources, less likely to be identified or protected before federally connected projects proceed. The CRS report repeatedly notes that the effects of the bill's changes are "unclear" and will depend on future decisions by regulators, agencies, or courts.

BAAJA emerged from negotiations among the chairs and ranking members of both the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

What Happens Next?

BAAJA was introduced Sept. 30 and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources the same day. The report ties the bill's "substantial deference" language to the Supreme Court's May 2025 decision in *Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County*, and notes that *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo*, decided in June 2024, means agency legal interpretations are now reviewed without deference. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee must act before the full Senate can consider the bill.

---

AllCiv makes it easy to stay politically informed and involved.

---

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article