You might not notice it (yet), but part of the federal government is currently shut down.
Funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) expired at midnight on Valentine’s Day, and Congress and the White House are in no great rush to resolve the differences that caused the shutdown.
The crux of the dispute, as most folks know, is the Trump administration’s immigration policies, in particular the surge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) into Minnesota and other places. Congressional Democrats are demanding reforms, including prohibiting agents from wearing face masks, requiring them to wear identification and body cams, requiring the use of judicial warrants for agents to enter private property, and improvements in conditions in detention centers. Republicans have indicated they are willing to negotiate but reject a number of the Democrats’ demands.
Ironically, ICE and CBP are the only two DHS agencies that can continue operating during the shutdown, since they received an influx of money in last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. But other departments – including FEMA, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Coast Guard – have no funds, meaning that essential personnel who respond to disasters and screen airline passengers, among other things, will soon start missing paychecks.
It’ll be an awkward backdrop to Tuesday’s State of the Union Address. President Trump will no doubt blame Senate Democrats for not giving the votes to move a DHS appropriations bill forward, while Democrats (many of whom will likely not attend) will argue that it’s up to Republicans, who control both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, to fix the problem. Ultimately, it will be awkward for both sides if flights start being cancelled because TSA agents don’t show up and disaster relief is delayed due to a lack of funding.
The 800 Reg Review Commences
While DHS is in limbo, the rest of the federal government is funded and functioning, including the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Unless you’ve been taking a social media cleanse the last couple of weeks, you no doubt know that the Council has started a process to review and potentially revise the 800 regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
At its first business meeting of the year on February 12, ACHP Vice Chairman Travis Voyles reiterated his goal of updating the regulations, telling the Council, “Since 22 years have passed since the regulations were last revised, it’s a great time to get to work.”
Although Council members raised few specific ideas to revise the regulations, most agreed that the regulations can be improved. Some cited the need for better predictability and certainty in the Section 106 process, while others said that the problem wasn’t the regulations, per se, but inconsistencies in how federal agencies administer them. Robust consultation with local communities and Tribes was a common theme in the discussion, as was the general need for earlier consultation.
Voyles told the Council that the process of revising the regulations will comply with all relevant laws, executive orders and regulations, including the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which requires public consultation. It is not known when any specific proposals to amend the regulations will be released or when the Council would vote on them.
ACRA will continue to advocate that any changes to the regulations serve to strengthen the Section 106 process, address the real issues that cause delays and maintain the carefully crafted balance between building the infrastructure we need with protecting our cultural resources. Through its Government Relations Committee, ACRA will develop comments when the time comes and encourages all firms to provide comments.
As part of its action plan to ensure the voice of the industry is heard, ACRA is holding a Hot Topic on the 800 regulations review on Thursday, February 26, at 2:00pm ET.
ACRA Hot Topics give CRM practitioners the opportunity to participate in discussions and problem-solving for pressing issues facing the industry. All employees of ACRA member firms are welcome to join. The ACRA Hot Topics series is only open to ACRA members at this time. There may be opportunities for non-members to participate in future sessions.
To register for the Hot Topic, click here.
Council Punts on Army Program Comment
Heeding concerns from ACRA and others about a rushed process, the ACHP voted unanimously to request the Army provide Council members an additional 45 days to review its proposed Program Comment for Army Warfighting Readiness and Associated Infrastructure program comment and address outstanding issues of disagreement.
In comments to the ACHP in January, ACRA expressed serious concerns with the Program Comment, including about its broad scope and the short comment time that was provided to the public. ACRA wrote that the Program Comment’s scope ”goes well beyond previous program comments, and the number of structures covered dwarfs those of other Army program comments. Such an expansive program comment demands there be more robust public engagement and study before approval.”
ACRA will continue monitoring developments around the Program Comment.
ACRA Reminds TVA That NEPA Changes Do Not Relieve it of 106 Obligations
ACRA has submitted comments to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in response to its interim final rule (IFR) making changes to its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations.
TVA’s changes are similar to those made by other agencies last year in response to the elimination of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, the Supreme Court’s Seven Counties decision narrowing the scope of NEPA reviews, and a 2023 law that reduced timelines and instituted other NEPA reforms.
In its comments, ACRA reminded TVA that changes to its NEPA regulations “do not release it from its obligations under Section 106 of NHPA and its accompanying regulations.” Noting that the changes remove a provision that stated that the use of NEPA categorical exclusions does not relieve the agency from compliance with NHPA and other statutes, ACRA urged the TVA to provide guidance to staff reminding them of this obligation.
ACRA also expressed concerns that the process used by the TVA to publish the IFR did not adequately engage in Tribal consultation, as was the case with other agencies’ 2025 NEPA rule changes, telling TVA that failing to engage in consultation “risks undermining the government-to-government relationship with federally recognized Tribes.”