“For years, 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,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright. “President Trump has ended the war on American coal and is restoring common-sense energy policies that put Americans first.”
According to DOE, the funding supports projects that:
The initiative is part of President Trump’s executive orders on “Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry” and “Strengthening the Reliability and Security of the United States Electric Grid.”
Environmental and public-interest organizations immediately criticized the funding, calling it a setback for U.S. decarbonization goals and a misuse of taxpayer dollars.
“Expanding mining and spending taxpayer money on burning coal will only exacerbate the deadly pollution and rising electricity bills that communities are already facing,” said Jill Tauber, Vice President of Litigation for Climate & Energy at Earthjustice. “We should be investing in modern energy systems that protect health and reduce carbon emissions, not locking ourselves into decades more of coal dependency.”
“There is no energy emergency—only a political one,” said Tyson Slocum, Director of Energy at Public Citizen. “These actions distort the market, prop up uneconomic plants, and stall the clean-energy transition.”
The Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC) also warned that DOE’s program could saddle ratepayers with higher costs while slowing renewable energy deployment.
“People and businesses across the Midwest should not be forced to pay for uneconomic coal plants that are unnecessary for reliable service,” said Howard Learner, ELPC Executive Director.
Industry observers note that the timing of DOE’s coal funding comes as several utilities—including Duke Energy and PacifiCorp—are accelerating coal-to-renewables transitions and announcing plans to retire aging facilities by the early 2030s.
While the Department emphasizes reliability and national security, environmental advocates argue that such investments risk undermining progress toward the 2050 net-zero target and contradict broader federal and state-level decarbonization efforts.
