Washington D.C. – President Donald Trump has directed the Pentagon to procure electricity generated by coal-fired power plants, a move intended to bolster the struggling domestic coal industry. The directive, formalized through an executive order , has ignited criticism from energy economists and environmental advocates who characterize the plan as costly, inefficient, and environmentally damaging.
The executive order mandates the Department of Defense to establish agreements with coal-fired power facilities to supply electricity to military installations and other critical infrastructure. During a ceremony at the White House, dubbed “The Champion of Coal Event,” Trump stated, “We’re going to be buying a lot of coal through the military now. And it’s going to be less expensive and actually much more effective than what we have been using for many, many years. And again, with the environmental progress that’s been made on coal, it’s going to be just as clean.”
The move represents a significant escalation of the Trump administration’s efforts to revive the U.S. Coal sector, which has faced decades of decline due to competition from cheaper natural gas and the rapid growth of renewable energy sources. The administration argues that supporting coal is vital for national security and energy independence, framing it as a matter of grid resilience.
Republican lawmakers have lauded the decision. Representative Andy Barr of Kentucky, who attended the White House ceremony, declared the administration was ending a “war on coal” waged by previous Democratic administrations. “We’re putting our coal miners back to work to make America energy dominant again,” Barr said in a recorded statement.
The President received a trophy inscribed “Undisputed Champion of Beautiful Clean Coal” from the Washington Coal Club lobby group during the event, further emphasizing the administration’s commitment to the industry.
However, the initiative faces substantial opposition from energy experts and environmental groups. Critics contend that coal is among the most expensive and polluting energy sources available, and that prioritizing it over cleaner alternatives will increase electricity costs for consumers and exacerbate environmental problems.
Laurie Williams, director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, issued a statement condemning the executive order as an illegal bailout for the coal industry. “Rather than helping people with their crippling electrical bills, Donald Trump is illegally bailing out his coal industry buddies with precious taxpayer dollars,” she stated. “As energy bills and hospital bills stack up for everyday families, Americans have one man to blame: Donald Trump — the undisputed champion of expensive energy and deadly pollution.”
Julie McNamara, associate policy director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, characterized the order as a misallocation of resources. She argued that cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient alternatives exist, but the administration has instead chosen to prop up a declining industry while simultaneously hindering the development of new solar and wind projects and impeding investment in modern grid infrastructure. “Reality doesn’t lie: coal is a rapidly dwindling relic of the past, not a solution for the future,” McNamara said.
Matthew Davis, former Environmental Protection Agency scientist and vice president of federal policy, echoed these concerns, pointing to the inherent economic risks. “Coal power not only has one of the highest costs of any energy source, but also has the worst reliability record of any form of energy, with twice as many unplanned shutdowns and interruptions in generation as wind power,” Davis stated. He argued that investing in clean energy sources like wind and solar would be a more effective and cost-efficient approach to strengthening the nation’s energy grid.
The executive order comes amid growing scrutiny of the Trump administration’s energy policies. Recent reports indicate the administration is also preparing to roll back the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, a key scientific justification for climate regulations. This move, coupled with the directive to purchase coal-fired electricity, signals a broader shift away from efforts to combat climate change and a renewed focus on supporting fossil fuel industries.
The potential financial implications of the order remain unclear. While the administration claims purchasing coal through the military will be “less expensive,” independent analyses suggest otherwise. The long-term costs associated with maintaining aging coal plants and mitigating their environmental impact could significantly outweigh any short-term savings. The order raises questions about the legality of using defense spending to subsidize a specific industry.
The Department of Defense has not yet released details on how it will implement the executive order or the specific amount of coal-fired electricity it intends to purchase. The agency is currently facing internal confusion regarding the administration’s spending freezes and executive orders, as reported by Politico, potentially complicating the implementation process. The long-term impact of this directive on the U.S. Energy landscape and the global effort to address climate change remains to be seen.
