In February, President Trump received a trophy declaring him the “Undisputed Champion of Beautiful Clean Coal.” He accepted it alongside more than a dozen coal executives and miners at a White House ceremony, just after ordering the Department of Defense to purchase billions of dollars’ worth of power from plants and announcing the Department of Energy would allocate $175 million in funding for six projects to upgrade coal plants in four states.
It’s a far cry from a few years ago, when clean energy investments in areas that had seen polluting plants close were earmarked $4 billion in credits through the Inflation Reduction Act to help them transition away from coal economies—and it seemed as though coal was well on its way out. Over nearly two decades, coal use across the country had declined rapidly. Before 2007, coal provided over 50% of U.S. electricity. In 2024, it provided only 15%—a . By 2022, coal emissions had 57% from their peak in 2005.
“Before the president took office, the trends for coal included climate regulations, other local pollution rules, and market forces like the lower cost of solar and wind. Natural gas has been relatively cheap for most of the past two decades, so those were headwinds for coal,” says Noah Kaufman, senior research scholar at the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy. “All of those things have shifted in the past year.”
There’s no denying the president has been a far more passionate champion of coal than his recent predecessors. In February alone, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also announced it would , meant to be implemented by 2027, thereby allowing coal-burning plants to release more heavy metals, like mercury and lead, into the air, along with repealing the , the legal framework for greenhouse gas emissions regulations.
But despite what Trump’s trophy says, the president can’t take all the credit. Other factors—from rising natural gas prices to the explosion of data centers across the country—are also responsible for breathing life back into the sputtering coal industry.
The Tennessee Valley Authority, the nation’s largest public utility company, announced on Feb. 11 that it would no longer prioritize renewable energy, and would instead continue operating coal plants slated for retirement in 2027.
“Utilities around the country are turning to this strategy to meet rising data center demand,” says Amanda Levin, director of policy analysis at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “They’re trying to keep their aging, dirty plants running a little longer. And I think that’s partly driven by how rapid some of this load growth is expected to be.”
Rising natural gas prices have also contributed to an uptick in coal use. Coal power generation 13% in 2025, compared to a 3% drop in from natural gas.
“Even though there are other factors at play—like electricity demand growth, the rollback of regulations, and now explicit orders from the Trump Administration to keep coal plants open—all of which probably feed into this, I still believe natural gas prices are the single biggest driver,” notes Levin.
That doesn’t mean we’re going back to how things were. “Coal is a much smaller player in the U.S. today, even with this rebound, than it was in the past,” says Levin, who points out that while energy demand grew by 3% in 2025, 77% of that demand was met with renewables.
However, the rise of renewables won’t necessarily offset the environmental impacts of coal generation. Last year, 71 coal plants sought exemptions to Biden-era amendments to the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for power plants (MATS), which gave plants until 2027 to strengthen limits on mercury and other hazardous air pollutant emissions from coal-burning power plants and required continuous emissions monitoring. (These are the amendments Trump halted last month.)
EPA data analyzed by Levin shows the plants that sought exemptions are more polluting. “What we know is that not only did coal generation increase, but some of the most harmful emissions to public health from burning coal also rose—and often at levels higher than the amount of generation they’re producing,” says Levin. Exposure to coal plant pollution has been linked to an increased risk of several adverse health impacts, including asthma, lung cancer, and respiratory infections. “Plants that took the EPA up on its offer and actively sought exemptions are actually changing how they operate to be dirtier.”
While the Trump Administration has touted coal as a cost-effective solution to the country’s cost-of-living crisis, coal isn’t expected to lower electricity bills. In fact, it’s the most expensive power source. Research from the energy consulting group found that the Trump Administration’s push to keep coal plants open could cost U.S. utility customers between $3–6 billion by the end of 2028.
Experts worry piecemeal changes will further harm coal-dependent communities by preventing them from prioritizing and planning their transition away from fossil fuels. The administration has used the Federal Power Act to keep plants scheduled for retirement operational—a tactic often used during temporary emergencies like hurricanes or heat waves. But officials claim the emergency this time is an energy shortage. They can only extend the orders to keep plants open in 90-day increments.
“This is a disruptive way to handle energy planning,” says Ben Inskeep, program director at Citizens Action Coalition, one of the groups challenging the extensions. “These are very short-term lifelines. The orders are 90 days, and they don’t change the overall future outlook of the coal industry,” he adds. “At best, this is a short-term Band-Aid. At worst, you’re delaying local communities from investing in replacement generation or attracting alternative industries to their areas.”