Why It Matters

A new Congressional Research Service report titled "Connecting Constituents with Federal Programs for Historic Preservation" arrives as the Trump administration's fiscal year 2026 budget proposal would effectively eliminate the Historic Preservation Fund, the primary federal funding mechanism for preservation activities across the country.

The Big Picture

The report maps the federal preservation landscape, walking through who funds what, who administers it, and how constituents can access it. Core programs include:

  • The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), administered by the National Park Service (NPS), which distributes formula grants to State Historic Preservation Offices and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices
  • The Historic Tax Credit, a 20 percent federal tax credit for the certified rehabilitation of income-producing buildings listed on, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places, which is jointly administered by NPS and the IRS
  • The Section 106 Review Process, which requires federal agencies to consult on the effects of their projects on historic properties, affecting infrastructure, energy, and development work nationwide
  • The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent federal agency that oversees the Section 106 process and advises the President and Congress on preservation policy

The report identifies State Historic Preservation Offices and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices as the critical on-the-ground intermediaries between Washington and local communities. These offices are where the historic preservation grants actually flow, where National Register nominations get processed, and where communities access the technical assistance that makes federal programs available at the local level.

The foundational law underlying all of this is the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which established the HPF, the National Register, and the Section 106 framework. The current 20 percent tax credit structure for historic buildings dates to the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Political Stakes

For the Administration

The administration's fiscal year 2026 budget proposal would defund the very offices this CRS report identifies as the linchpin of federal-to-local preservation efforts. If the Historic Preservation Fund is eliminated, State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices across the country would lose their primary source of federal support.

Congress has already signaled resistance. Enacted on January 23, 2026, P.L. 119-74 included $3.267 billion for the National Park Service for fiscal year 2026, approximately 54 percent more than the administration requested, according to a related CRS report. The gap between what the administration sought, and what Congress approved, reflects a significant disagreement over the value of federal preservation funding.

For Republicans

Many of the communities that rely most heavily on the Historic Tax Credit for rehabilitating historic buildings are in economically distressed districts, including rural and post-industrial areas that tend to vote Republican. Eliminating or scaling back these programs would have direct, visible consequences in those districts.

For Democrats

Constituent services for property owners, local governments, nonprofits and tribes, makes the political case that these are not niche programs, but broad-based resources with wide reach.

For the Public

The Section 106 review process affects a wide range of infrastructure and development projects that require federal funding or permitting. Reduced NPS staffing capacity, a concern raised as part of broader DOGE-related cuts, could slow or complicate those reviews, with downstream effects on projects that extend well beyond preservation communities.

The Bottom Line

The central question for Congress is whether the constituent services value of these programs, from tax credits for historic buildings to grants flowing through State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, outweighs the Administration's push to cut them. The fiscal year 2026 appropriations outcome suggests Congress has already started answering that question. Whether that holds through the next budget cycle is worth watching.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.