Trump’s Coal Revival Push Faces Economic, Environmental And Technological Headwinds

President Donald Trump is making a bold gamble on coal, signing sweeping executive orders aiming to resurrect a struggling industry. Despite the presidential might behind these policies — including expanding coal leases and declaring a national energy emergency — experts suggest America is unlikely to reignite its coal-powered past, given deep-rooted economic trends, environmental realities, and technological change. This move raises critical questions about the future of U.S. energy and environmental policy in an era of climate urgency and rapid innovation.

In early April, President Trump enacted executive orders seeking to boost mining and the use of coal, particularly exploring whether coal could power the growing network of artificial intelligence data centers. Alongside, an executive order directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to streamline approvals that keep aging coal plants online in times of grid stress, after declaring a national energy emergency due to surging electricity demand from tech growth and manufacturing.

Yet many analysts assert this coal comeback is improbable. U.S. coal-generating capacity has steadily declined: from more than 40% of electricity in 2011, tumbling below 16% by 2016 and hovering at that level in 2023. As University of Maryland’s Ryna Cui points out, the fundamental driver is economics — coal just isn’t competitive with cheaper, cleaner alternatives like natural gas and renewables, which now supply the lion’s share of power.

Sanya Carley of the University of Pennsylvania argues, "Coal plants are no longer economically viable, and executive orders won’t alter those market dynamics." Data bears this out: the Energy Information Administration estimates new coal power is nearly four times costlier per megawatt-hour than standalone solar, despite coal’s touted resilience. Virtually no new coal plants are being planned nationwide.

Much of Trump’s rhetoric hails coal as "beautiful, clean" and brims with grand valuations, even claiming U.S. coal reserves are worth more than 100 times the gold in Fort Knox. Fact-checks reveal exaggeration: actual coal reserves are valued around $600 billion — more than $440 billion in U.S. gold but far from 100 times greater. Likewise, while pollution controls have improved coal’s emissions, it remains the dirtiest fossil fuel, producing carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates harmful to climate and human health.

Globally, momentum moves away from coal. The UK shuttered its final coal plant in 2024, and Germany is closing capacity — with no new coal plants on the horizon, contrary to Trump’s recent claims. Even in the U.S., the administration cannot force utilities to buy dirty, expensive fuel, underscores Stanford’s Rob Jackson: "A flurry of executive orders won’t save the coal industry."

Experts do concede that Trump's orders may temporarily extend the lives of existing plants during grid stress or periods of high demand. But without vast new investments — which face daunting financial, regulatory, and climate opposition — a genuine coal renaissance seems unlikely. Cui sums it up bluntly: "Why invest in a 19th-century fuel in the 21st century?"

President Trump’s aggressive embrace of coal amid rising energy demand and AI-fueled consumption highlights a crossroads in America’s energy story. Will the U.S. double down on fossil fuels, or accelerate its shift to sustainable and technologically advanced solutions? The stakes involve not just economics, but planetary health and global leadership.

What do you think? Can coal reclaim a central role, or is this a last stand for a fading fossil era? Share your thoughts below — join the conversation.

• Coal Industry
• Donald Trump
• U.S. Energy Policy