President Donald Trump used the 1950 Defense Production Act to steer nearly $700 million toward refurbishing 13 coal plants, building two new ones, and creating a West Coast coal export facility—while targeting the EPA to roll back a 2014 regional haze ruling.
On Thursday, at a White House briefing, President Donald Trump made a direct pitch for coal with a wartime-era tool: the 1950 Defense Production Act.
The goal is blunt. The administration wants to keep nearly $700 million flowing to coal plants and coal exports. using the law to support refurbishments. new construction. and continued operation of facilities whose retirement dates are already on the calendar. Trump said the effort will mean “We’re into energy that really works. ” and he claimed coal firms would pay an additional $1.7 billion to support the new construction.
His plan centers on a shopping list of energy infrastructure. Trump aims to refurbish 13 coal plants. build two new ones. and establish a West Coast coal export facility in the U.S. He is also angling for existing coal plants in four states to remain operational past their retirement dates—at a time when many coal plants around the country are retiring and the fossil fuel is in long-term decline.
The administration’s job case is also part of the pitch. Coal and oil are already heavily subsidized, but the administration says reversing coal’s steady decline will create 14,000 new jobs.
The timing matters beyond the briefing room. On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency also announced it would reverse a 2014 regional haze ruling that was due to close a coal power plant in Wyoming.
Taken together, the actions are happening against a backdrop the administration can’t easily erase. U.S. coal use has been in sharp retreat for almost two decades. accounting for only 8 percent of primary energy consumption nationwide in 2024. according to the Congressional Research Service. The expectation is that coal use will continue to fall further because of increased renewables and natural gas. Wind and solar produced a record 17 percent of U.S. energy in 2025 and are less expensive than fossil fuels. while natural gas—often described as a “bridge fuel”—is also much more commonly used today than coal.
Environmental groups responded with immediate anger, framing the proposal as a taxpayer-backed rescue for polluters. “Propping up coal billionaires with taxpayer money is one more way for the Trump administration to put polluters first and put the rest of us at risk. ” said Kit Kennedy. managing director for power at the Natural Resources Defense Council. to the Associated Press.
The underlying dispute is about risk and responsibility. Coal fuel is a major producer of greenhouse gas emissions, chiefly carbon dioxide, driving climate change. Coal’s decline has contributed to less severe, although still dangerous, recent projections for future global warming.
There is also a parallel fight about how environmental risk is defined. In February, the Trump administration scrapped the EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding” that climate change threatened human health. At the time of that February decision. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said the action would lead to an average of $2. 400 in cost savings per vehicle for consumers.
The administration’s broader stance has been clear in other parts of the energy market as well. In 2025, Trump declared a National Energy Emergency aimed at bulwarking the coal industry. At the same time, the president has broadly opposed solar and wind power during his administration.
If you line up the facts—the Defense Production Act effort. the targeted EPA reversal. the promised 14. 000 jobs. and the claim of added spending alongside firm contributions—the picture that emerges is a push to slow a decline already underway for nearly two decades. Coal’s share of primary energy consumption was 8 percent in 2024. wind and solar hit 17 percent in 2025. and natural gas is used more widely than coal. Yet the policy direction is moving in the opposite direction, extending plant life and building new capacity.
For now, Trump’s proposal is still unfolding, and the administration’s decisions are poised to collide with the physics of energy markets and the slow churn of environmental regulation. Editor’s Note (6/4/26): This story is in development and may be updated.
Defense Production Act coal power EPA regional haze Wyoming coal plant greenhouse gas emissions Trump administration energy policy wind and solar natural gas climate change
So basically they’re funding coal again… cool cool.
Defense Production Act for coal seems kinda wild, like why is “wartime” being used for power plants. Also they say jobs but I’m sure that’s temporary. EPA reversing stuff too just feels like they’re picking winners.
I don’t get it, the article says they’ll refurbish 13 plants but also “build two new ones” like… how is that not just delaying the inevitable. Then it says 14,000 new jobs which sounds made up, I’ve heard coal jobs already left years ago. Is the West Coast export facility shipping it to China or Canada or like Europe? because that part matters.
Defense Production Act was for defense stuff right? but now it’s for keeping coal plants alive?? Meanwhile people are acting like the EPA is the problem when coal is what powers everything. If they’re rolling back the regional haze ruling, does that mean more pollution over Wyoming or am I reading that wrong. 700 million dollars for coal sounds like a bailout dressed up as “energy that really works.”