For decades, from the highway boom of the 1960s to the recent surge in construction of data centers, federal law has sought to protect America’s historic sites from destruction or disturbance as the push for industrial development complicated efforts to preserve the country’s past.

At issue over the years have been burial sites dating back millenniums; earthen structures that have survived a thousand years in the desert; government buildings that evoke the early days of American democracy; and plantation houses that carry the painful history of slavery.

Now, a Trump-aligned panel is proposing to overhaul the regulations in ways that would speed up the review of industrial projects by limiting the input of preservationists and the public.

The proposed rules received initial approval from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a federal agency, this month. If adopted, they would, according to proponents, boost the economy by, say, helping to ease the way for commercial projects such as oil and gas drilling.

The changes would also, as preservationists note, aid President Trump’s efforts to redesign Washington, including his plans for the National Garden of American Heroes, by limiting public review.

A draft of the rule changes that circulated in recent weeks prompted an outcry from preservationists, architects, archaeologists and organizations representing Native American tribes. Though officials have said the draft is still subject to feedback and revisions, lawyers for preservation groups are already preparing for legal action in the event of a major overhaul.

“It’s both a scalpel and a bludgeon,” said Greg Werkheiser, a lawyer who specializes in preservation cases. “It cuts out whole swaths of what we are used to in terms of historical preservation over the past 60 years.”

Brent Leggs, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which holds a seat on the council, said the new regulations would “eviscerate the preservation of our shared civic and cultural heritage in the United States.”

During Mr. Trump’s second term, preservationists have been disturbed by his efforts to transform historic sites in Washington, where a practice of embracing measured change has come up against the president’s eagerness to adapt the capital to his own tastes. His decision to demolish the East Wing of the White House to make room for a new ballroom was enabled by the fact that the building is exempted from the preservation law that is currently under scrutiny.

The council that will consider the rule changes for final adoption is composed largely of presidential appointees and administration officials. For months, Trump-allied officials have argued for a need to cut red tape that, in their view, can needlessly delay infrastructure projects as federal agencies try to assuage the concerns of preservationists and local stakeholders.

“Undertakings are too often delayed by a consultation process that has become far more demanding and complicated than what was contemplated in the statute,” said Kevin Lilly, an official with the Interior Department, at a meeting of the council in June.

Experts say the changes would empower federal agencies to greenlight projects more quickly by reducing requirements for the government to consult Native tribes and state preservationists, a process that often leads to projects being relocated or adjusted.

The changes also narrow the types of historic sites that are up for discussion. For example, natural features such as mountains or landscapes, which have been factored into reviews in the past, are expressly excluded. And “visual, atmospheric or audible” consequences of projects on historic sites will no longer be part of the equation.

A spokeswoman for the council declined to address the criticism from preservation groups. She pointed to comments from the council’s vice chairman, Travis Voyles, who said at a public meeting in February that his goal in updating the regulations was to streamline them and turn them into a “continued useful tool as this country moves forward.”

“Characterizations of any proposal before it has even been published for public comment are premature and irresponsible,” said a statement from the Interior Department, whose secretary, Doug Burgum, sits on the council.

The statement said the department’s goal was to “provide greater clarity, consistency, and efficiency” in the regulations, while keeping them in line with the National Historic Preservation Act, the 1966 law on which the rules are built.

While the regulations are unfamiliar to most Americans, they have for decades been at the center of emotional public debates when development threatens historic sites across the country.

In the early 1990s, after early work on the construction of a federal office building in Lower Manhattan unearthed a 17th and 18th-century burial ground for free and enslaved Africans, the regulations helped lead to the preservation of what is now the African Burial Ground National Monument.

Today, few federal projects are more in public focus than Mr. Trump’s plans in Washington.

A host of projects proposed by the president are subject to review under the regulations as they exist, including the 250-foot arch up for approval near Arlington National Cemetery, the National Garden of American Heroes planned for West Potomac Park, and a redesign of a public golf course in East Potomac Park.

Preservationists are perhaps even more concerned with the potential effects of the proposed regulations outside the spotlight of Washington. Over the years, the consultation process in the existing regulations has led to some projects being scuttled, such as a grain export facility that was thought to be too close to historic sites such as the Whitney Plantation in Louisiana, now a museum focused on the history of slavery.

The regulations have not been updated for more than 20 years, and leaders of preservation groups with three of the 23 seats on the council said they had been involved in preliminary discussions of some modest changes. They said they were shocked when they received an email this month from the vice chairman that contained a draft for a dramatic overhaul of the rules.

“For us, it felt like a bait and switch,” said Ira Matt, an executive director at the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, one of three preservation groups with seats on the council.

“This isn’t just going to impact tribal people,” he went on, “The American public at large should be concerned about this effort to erode their history, their life ways, and how fast they’re going to see data centers popping up around every corner.”

Mr. Trump appointed more than a third of the 23 members this year. The council includes political allies; an architect who has worked on the president’s private club in Florida, Mar-a-Lago; and members of his administration, including Mr. Voyles, an official at the Environmental Protection Agency.

After the draft rules were approved by a vote of the council, they were sent to the Office of Management and Budget for analysis, continuing a review process that could last weeks or months.

The cultural site that preservationists often point to as being among the most likely to be affected by the rule changes is a vast stretch of land in the Southwest, known as Chaco Canyon, that is home to thousands of archaeological sites associated with Pueblo, Navajo and other groups. At its center is a national park with earthen structures dating back more than a thousand years.

In recent months, the land has become a flashpoint in the battle between preservationists and the Trump administration’s push for oil and gas drilling, as officials consider revoking a ban on resource extraction in a 10-mile zone surrounding the park.

Paul Reed, an archaeologist who has worked at Chaco for years, said the new regulations would make it easier for drilling leases to be granted on the land surrounding the park, threatening the beauty of a landscape that is considered by many to be a precious cultural resource.

The fear, he said, is that landscapes that are now protected will soon be dotted with drilling rigs.

“We have to have oil and gas development, obviously,” he said, “but we don’t have to have it on America’s most amazing landscapes.”

Emily Badger contributed reporting.