The administration has rolled out a pair of coal-focused funding moves. First, the Department of Energy announced a $100 million Notice of Funding Opportunity to refurbish and modernize coal-fired power plants, aiming to extend lifetimes, boost efficiency, and support grid reliability. This follows a larger plan from September to invest $625 million to revitalize the coal industry, including recommissioning or modernizing older plants to meet rising electricity demand from data centers and manufacturing.
Executive orders and the broader plan for coal
An April 8, 2025 executive order set the policy foundation. It declares coal “essential to our national and economic security” and calls for removing federal regulatory barriers, encouraging coal use to meet domestic energy demand, increasing exports, and ensuring federal policy does not discriminate against coal-fired generation. The order directs agencies to:
- Identify and prioritize coal resources on federal lands and expedite leasing
- Process royalty rate reduction applications more quickly
- Review and rescind policies that discourage investment in coal projects
- Promote coal exports and expand use of categorical environmental exclusions
- Evaluate metallurgical coal for “critical” status and assess coal’s role in powering artificial intelligence data centers
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum framed the push in simple terms: “It matters to the world, and it’s going to continue to matter for a long time.”
How this differs from Biden’s intentions
Biden-era policy emphasized transitioning former coal communities into clean energy manufacturing. In October 2024 the Department of Energy announced $428 million for 14 projects in coal communities to build supply chains for technologies like grid components, batteries, and low-carbon materials. Supporters described this as a strategy to cut pollution, create jobs, and strengthen domestic manufacturing.
On the ground, coal generation and production declined under those policies as companies moved toward cheaper natural gas and greener power. Reporting from the Navajo Nation noted that “Biden-era policies sought to elevate greener forms of energy, like wind and solar,” even as communities dependent on coal debated the tradeoffs.
By contrast, Trump’s directives aim to keep coal plants operating, expand mining on federal lands, encourage exports, and position coal as a backbone for rising electricity demand.
Biden’s Policies to Reduce Coal
Biden’s record points to two levers. First, the policy emphasis on wind and solar steered the market away from coal. Second, federal actions and standards were seen by coal supporters as hostile to coal plants. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the “Biden and Obama administrations relentlessly targeted America’s coal industry and workers, resulting in the closure of reliable power plants and higher electricity costs.” Pro-transition spending under Biden also focused on repurposing coal communities for clean energy manufacturing rather than extending the life of coal assets.
Supporters cast the current shift as a correction. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said “President Trump has ended the war on American coal and is restoring common sense energy policies that put Americans first,” adding that the projects will “help keep America’s coal plants operating.” Interior echoed that the approach is meant to “keep our lights on, our economy strong, and America Energy Dominant.”
On the Navajo Nation, President Buu Nygren praised Trump’s coal orders, saying “The harmful policies of the past have unfairly targeted coal, but those tides are turning.” For leaders like Nygren, coal still means stable, well-paid jobs in places where many families struggle.
Climate and public-interest groups argue the coal push is expensive, unhealthy, and unnecessary. The Natural Resources Defense Council said the administration is “handing our hard-earned tax dollars over to the owners of coal plants that cost more to run than new, clean energy.” Earthjustice criticized emergency orders that forced the J.H. Campbell coal plant in Michigan to keep operating, calling them “extremely expensive” and “unlawful,” and claiming they are “bilking consumers for the benefit of the coal industry.” Activists also point to health impacts from coal pollution and argue that modern clean energy can power data centers at lower cost.
The export wildcard
One complication sits offshore. New government data show U.S. coal exports fell 14 percent from January through September compared with a year earlier, tied in part to China halting U.S. coal imports during a trade dispute. Analysts say most U.S. coal sent to China had been metallurgical coal from Appalachia, and a rebound would disproportionately help that region. The administration is still pushing to promote coal exports, but whether foreign demand cooperates remains uncertain.
Communities like those on the Navajo Nation remain divided. Many residents see coal as an economic engine that provides well-paid jobs. Others worry about water use, air pollution, and health. Trump’s plan seeks to slow or reverse coal’s retreat by funding plant upgrades, accelerating leasing, and prioritizing coal in federal policy. Biden’s approach channeled money into clean energy factories and supply chains located in former coal hubs.
Trump’s plan follows through on a promise to produce as much energy as possible and to stand up to climate activists. The budget moves include $625 million in coal-sector support and a fresh $100 million to modernize plants. The executive order puts the full weight of federal policy behind mining, operating, and exporting coal. Supporters say this keeps power reliable and jobs intact. Activists say it wastes money, risks health, and ignores cheaper clean energy. The fight over coal is no longer just about the past. It is about who powers America’s next wave of data centers, factories, and everyday life.
