Trump Approves $700 Million Coal Revival Plan, Invoking Defense Production Act for Directed Funding
N.R. Finch
Trump invoked the Cold War–era Defense Production Act to channel nearly $700 million to the coal industry — funding new plants, keeping existing ones running, and building an export terminal — the first time Washington has used a national-security authority to bankroll coal directly, amid rising energy prices and looming midterm elections.
Where does the money go?
Roughly $425 million in DPA funds goes to more than a dozen coal-fired power plants. Recipients include Duke Energy, Hallador Energy, Oklahoma Gas & Electric, and at least one subsidiary of American Electric Power.
$75 million funds a proposed export terminal — West Gateway — at Oakland, California, capable of shipping up to 12 million tons of U.S. coal overseas per year.
The Energy Department will separately distribute about $185 million in grants to build two new plants in Alaska and West Virginia and restart a shuttered facility in Maryland — the first new U.S. coal plants since 2013.
Why invoke the Defense Production Act?
The Defense Production Act is Cold War–era legislation that lets a president direct funds on national-security grounds, bypassing the normal congressional appropriations process. This means → the White House can move money fast, without waiting for line-item approval on Capitol Hill.
AI data centers and new factories have driven up electricity demand and pushed power prices higher. After Trump's military action against Iran, Tehran closed the Strait of Hormuz — a chokepoint carrying roughly one-fifth of global energy flows — sending oil and gasoline prices further up.
In plain terms = power prices and fuel prices are climbing at the same time, midterms are months away, and the White House needs a visible "we're acting now" move. The DPA is the fastest funding channel available.
What do supporters say?
The coal industry welcomed the announcement directly. Michelle Bloodworth, CEO of advocacy group America's Power, said the move "reflects the Trump administration's recognition that coal is a critical component of America's energy security."
Trump himself framed it in sweeping terms: "Today, we are taking historic action to lower energy prices and the cost of living for all Americans with the power of clean, beautiful coal."
This reflects the White House's political narrative: rebranding coal as a "national-security asset" rather than a "sunset fuel."
What is the core argument against it?
Signal Group managing director Eben Burnham-Snyder offered the sharpest analogy: "This is like throwing money at horse-drawn carriages to solve the oil-price problem."
His math: the same funds spent on new solar could deliver several times the generating capacity; spent on advanced nuclear, the long-run payoff would be higher still. This means → the opposition's core objection is not "don't spend" but "you're spending in the wrong place."
Coal's share of U.S. power generation has fallen from over 50% in the 1990s to roughly 17% today, displaced mainly by cheap natural gas and renewables — a structural decline that a single funding package is unlikely to reverse.
What can this money actually change?
In plain terms = $700 million is modest relative to the coal industry's scale — closer to life support than revival.
The unresolved question: whether federal funding can meaningfully reverse coal's structural slide from 50% to 17%, or merely keep a handful of plants running a few more years, slowing a transition already underway.
This reflects a deeper tension: the White House's short-term political need — showing action before the midterms — pulling against the energy market's long-term structural trajectory, in which coal continues to lose ground.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.