Donald Trump Is the Coal President
Just as Biden’s preference for renewables distorted markets and harmed consumers, so too does Trump’s bias toward coal.

Coal—the dominant fuel in the U.S., before it was steadily replaced by cheaper and cleaner energy sources—has found new life under President Donald Trump. In April, Trump issued an executive order to reinvigorate "America's Beautiful Clean Coal Industry," which directed federal agencies to remove regulatory barriers to coal production and coal mining on federal lands.
Since then, the Energy Department has opened up federal financing opportunities for coal production (which include a $200 billion fund at the agency's Loan Programs Office), designated coal as a critical material (which allows it to receive more federal funding), and reinstated a federal coal advisory committee that had lapsed.
The Interior Department, meanwhile, has fast-tracked fossil fuel and coal projects on federal lands. Earlier this year, the agency officially ended a moratorium on federal coal leasing, and in August it approved a plan that will make 14.5 million tons of coal available for mining in Wyoming through 2037. The agency has also implemented rules making it harder to permit renewable energy projects on federal lands.
Congress has also made it easier for coal to succeed. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act reduced royalty rates for coal projects on federal lands and mandated that more federal acres be opened up to coal production. The bill also subsidizes foreign steelmaking by giving a tax break to the type of coal used in this production.
The change in coal's fortune is remarkable given how it fared under the Biden administration. In addition to calling for coal plants across the U.S. to be shut down and replaced by renewables, former President Joe Biden also finalized strict air pollution regulations that would have increased costs and closed fossil-fueled power plants nationwide. The Trump administration began rescinding these regulations in June.
Just as Biden's preference for renewables distorted markets and harmed consumers, so too does Trump's bias toward coal. In May, the Energy Department ordered the Midcontinent Independent System Operator—which oversees most of the power grid from Minnesota to Louisiana—to keep a Michigan coal plant open through the summer to avoid rolling blackouts. The plant was scheduled to close that month.
In addition to not preventing outages, the order ended up costing the utility $29 million over five weeks, reports E&E News. Consumers Energy, which runs the plant, is seeking "cost recovery" from federal regulators, which would "allow the costs to be spread over millions of electricity customers," per E&E.
The U.S. needs more energy generation and is facing a capacity shortfall that could lead to future blackouts and rate hikes. But this shortfall is largely a result of bad government policies, such as federal regulations that delay nuclear power, and politicians picking energy winners and losers. Trump risks repeating the mistakes of past presidents. Coal companies might benefit, but ratepayers, markets, and the environment will be left worse off.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Trump Is the Coal President."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is spoiled-brat POTUS the DOPUS doing "rolling coal" for attention, and to "pwn the libs", mostly. SNOT for practical reasons, for the most part!!!
If ye haven't heard of "rolling coal", then here ya go, AI Perplexity summarized it for me...
Rolling coal is the deliberate act of modifying a diesel engine or truck to emit large clouds of black or gray exhaust smoke, often as a form of protest or attention-seeking behavior.[2][3][5]
### How Rolling Coal Works
This effect is produced by adjusting the engine to take in more fuel than can burn efficiently, often by removing emissions controls, installing special switches, or using oversized fuel injectors. The result is excessive soot and particulates released from the exhaust. These modifications can cost from a few hundred to several thousand dollars and often damage the engine over time by increasing wear and reducing fuel efficiency.[5][6][8][2]
### Social and Legal Context
Rolling coal is sometimes done as a form of protest against environmentalism or to cause a nuisance, especially targeting cyclists, pedestrians, and hybrid cars. In many regions, these modifications violate local or federal air quality laws and emissions standards, making the practice illegal. Enforcement of anti-coal rolling laws can be challenging because the modifications are often designed to be easily switched on or off.[6][7][8][2][5]
### Environmental and Health Impact
Coal rolling produces high levels of pollution, contributing to respiratory illnesses and environmental degradation. It also impairs road visibility, increasing the risk for accidents and further public safety concerns.[2][6]
In essence, rolling coal is a hazardous and generally illegal vehicle modification meant to produce dramatic plumes of exhaust for effect, protest, or mischief.[5][6][2]
[1](https://www.reddit.com/r/florida/comments/14kp2ux/can_someone_explain_like_im_five_the_point_of/)
[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal)
etc. ...
I can understand seeing it that way, but I think that's mostly an artifact of HyR's couching Trump as much less libertarian than he actually is, making it look like he has a coal fetish.
I'm good with leaning on fossil fuels while getting nuclear plants online and developing even better sources. If that isn't part of the plan then I'll agree Trump is in the wrong. Even then his actions are better than subsidizing wind and solar in what often looked like money laundering.
Cleaner? Probably. Cheaper? Not obvious from the facts in evidence. Far too much government interference in the markets over the decades to tell.
I want a nuker president. Cheap, abundant, reliable, zero emissions, and if Canada acts up, we can fire up a few centrifuges and send her back to First Nations times.
Donald Trump Is the Coal President
AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts.:
So it's not so much that Trump is specifically the coal President as much as it is that Trump is a pro-(domestic)-energy President and anti-regulatory President and Reason Magazine is just a really, really, REALLY shitty source of information that's *still* "reluctantly and strategically" defending the Biden Administration's shitty "We're not coming for your gas stoves (We're coming for your gas stoves for your own good)." authoritarianism.
That's how I see it too. The article lays out mostly deregulatory moves, but, highlighting a few actual subsidies, casts it as "the same as" Biden. HyR manages to make the most libertarian administration in my lifetime, better than Reagan, appear relatively authoritarian because they rock some Reason hobby horses the wrong way.
They can pry my gas stove out of my cold dead hands.
Pretty sure they would be hot dead hands, but I agree with the sentiment.
"...So it's not so much that Trump is specifically the coal President as much as it is that Trump is a pro-(domestic)-energy President and anti-regulatory President and Reason Magazine is just a really, really, REALLY shitty source of information that's *still* "reluctantly and strategically" defending the Biden Administration's shitty "We're not coming for your gas stoves (We're coming for your gas stoves for your own good)." authoritarianism..."
And Reason (like the UN and that grease-ball Newsom) are now firmly behind the curve.
Fo near 50 years, we've been handed a pile of BS wherein 'renewable' energy sources would replace consumables. Has not happened, cannot happen; the sun shines some portion of most days, the wind blows now and then, and when I get up in the morning, I expect to flip what switch, get some light and hear the coffee start brewing.
That takes fossil fuels, PERIOD. End of story.
Trump is willing to accept that while Luse, being the head-up-his-ass watermelon still hopes the unicorns fart on him.
Fuck off and die, asswipe.
Coal plants release more radioactive material to the environment than nuclear plants. It is because all coal has trace amounts of Uranium and Thorium.
So.............
what?
Fuck off and die, shitstain.
Coal started dying because of fracking. Then solar got insanely cheap (even without subsidies). Coal has no future even with Trump's subsidies. Trump can keep the coal plants open for a few more years but he's just delaying the inevitable.
Keep in mind red states have been leading in solar & wind. States that actually let you build shit. With battery storage exploding, they actually become reliable - an example of free markets solving problems.
"...With battery storage exploding,...
Finally, the lefty pile of steaming shit posts something that isn't a lie: Yes, they are exploding and burning and polluting in huge amounts!
They are HORRIBLE, and they are on track to follow the same lies which promised 'clean energy' (and didn't) to address a non-existent 'problem'.
Clean coal technology, along with other clean fossil fuel technologies, absolutely exist now and are profitable. Unlike most renewables that require “carbon credits” and other government market manipulations to appear profitable. And that further require cooked models that show how renewables will eventually be profitable “one day”. Sound familiar? There’s a reason the gov had to sell the threat of “climate change” along with their schemes to subsidize their friends in the renewable sector. Anyone remember Solyndra?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra
Equating DJT directing “federal agencies to remove regulatory barriers to coal production and coal mining on federal lands” with government picking and choosing winners. Brilliant libertarian analysis guys. What’s next, an article explaining how the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Cap-and-Trade Program is free market hero Gavin Newsom’s solution to saving the earth?
Gotta justify that TDS somehow!
Solar and wind need conventional power plants to make up their capacity for times when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. Iberia’s grid didn’t have much inertia when things began to cascade.
Coal plants should receive similar regulatory treatment as do the subsidized green energy facilities.
1. The climate is changing at a rate within historical limits, certainly slowly enough that humanity will have no trouble adapting for any foreseeable future.
2. While all change is propagandized as harmful, the increase in CO^2 is actually beneficial in that it increases plant growth.
3. We cannot, with certainty, attribute change to human activity.
4. If we could instantly stop the generation of GHGs, no one has yet shown that we would find a measurable effect on temperature change in the next century.
We have been hearing WOLF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! for the past 50 years; it's not. It's a small puppy.
Read:
“Unsettled”, Steven Koonin
“Apocalypse Never”, Michael Shellenberger
“Climate Uncertainty and Risk”, Judith Curry
“Fossil Future”, Alex Epstein
“Power Hungry”, Robert Bryce
“False Alarm”, Bjorn Lomborg
And get ahead of the curve.