Fact Check: Trump’s Efforts to Revitalize Coal Industry

In a significant policy shift aimed at bolstering the struggling coal industry, President Trump has directed the Pentagon to increase its procurement of electricity from coal-fired power plants through an executive order. The directive instructs the Defense Department to establish long-term power purchase agreements with coal facilities that supply military installations and other critical operations.

According to a White House fact sheet, the administration’s primary objectives are to ensure reliable baseload power, enhance grid resilience, and strengthen national security. The Trump administration contends that intermittent energy sources such as wind and solar cannot consistently provide on-demand electricity during extreme weather conditions or emergencies.

“This executive order prioritizes American energy security through established, dependable generation sources,” said a senior administration official who requested anonymity to discuss the policy details. “Military operations require absolute reliability that only certain energy sources can guarantee.”

However, energy analysts suggest the order’s practical impact on the broader coal industry may be limited in scope. Experts consulted by The New York Times estimate that even if the military sourced all of its electricity requirements from coal, this would represent only about three percent of U.S. coal-power capacity.

While the policy is unlikely to revitalize the entire industry, it could prove crucial for specific plants, particularly those in proximity to military bases. These facilities may receive a lifeline through guaranteed long-term contracts that provide financial stability in an otherwise challenging market environment.

The Pentagon contracts represent just one element of a more comprehensive strategy to support coal. The Department of Energy recently allocated approximately $175 million toward extending the operational lifespan of coal plants across several states. Additionally, the Tennessee Valley Authority has postponed the retirement of two large coal-fired facilities that were scheduled for closure later this decade.

Collectively, these measures demonstrate how the administration is leveraging federal purchasing power, funding mechanisms, and policy adjustments to decelerate coal’s decline in the American energy landscape.

Coal’s challenges stem primarily from economic factors rather than regulatory pressure. For years, utility companies have been retiring coal plants because alternative energy sources—natural gas, wind, and solar—often present more cost-effective options for both construction and operation. Federal energy data indicates that power generators continue to plan additional coal retirements, albeit at a somewhat reduced pace.

The administration’s emphasis on reliability has become central to its energy policy messaging. White House officials maintain that dependable energy sources are essential for military readiness and overall grid stability, particularly during crisis situations when energy demands surge.

“Our military cannot function with intermittent power,” explained an administration spokesperson. “National security requires absolute certainty in energy supply chains.”

Energy experts counter this perspective, noting that modern grid reliability depends on a complex interplay of factors including robust transmission systems, energy storage capabilities, flexible generation resources, and efficient market design—not merely the type of fuel used for generation.

Coal’s contribution to U.S. electricity generation has diminished substantially over time, reflecting a broader market-driven transition toward more economical energy alternatives. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, coal-fired electricity has declined from approximately 50 percent of generation in 2005 to less than 20 percent in recent years.

Industry observers predict that while federal support measures could postpone some plant closures, they are unlikely to reverse the sector’s long-term trajectory. The coal industry’s future will likely depend less on federal policy interventions and more on whether utility companies and investors view coal as economically viable within an increasingly competitive and rapidly evolving energy marketplace.

Environmental groups have already signaled their intention to challenge the executive order through legal channels, arguing that it undermines climate objectives and potentially violates procurement regulations requiring competitive bidding processes.

As implementation begins, the true impact of this policy shift will become clearer in the coming months, particularly for communities and workers dependent on the coal economy.