Heading into President Donald Trump’s second term, coal seemed to be on its last legs. With more than half of the nation’s coal-fired power plants set to retire by 2028 and no new facilities in sight, the industry appeared to be in a downward spiral. However, Trump’s first year back in office has given the coal industry a glimmer of hope.
President Trump has been a vocal supporter of coal, and his Department of Energy has intervened multiple times to prevent plants from shutting down. Additionally, the construction of artificial intelligence data centers, a trend supported by Trump, has led to a surge in energy demand, prompting many utilities to postpone coal facility closures.
As a result, coal consumption increased by 13 percent last year, reversing a long decline and causing a spike in domestic carbon emissions. Of the 11 coal-fired plants slated for retirement, only two closed, with efforts underway to revive one of them. Many utilities that had planned to shut down coal plants in the next few years have now abandoned those plans.
The Trump administration has also rolled back regulations governing pollution and miner safety, aligning with its pro-coal agenda of “Unleashing American Energy.” Despite these efforts, experts believe that coal’s revival may be short-lived. The nation’s aging coal plants are becoming increasingly costly to operate compared to cheaper and more abundant natural gas and solar options.
Chris Wright, a former fracking executive, has played a key role in keeping coal plants open through emergency orders issued by the Department of Energy. These orders have delayed the closure of several plants, sparking legal challenges and drawing scrutiny from regulators.
However, these efforts could come at a high cost. Keeping outdated coal plants open could cost ratepayers billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses. Utilities may struggle to recover these costs, potentially burdening customers with additional financial strain.
Despite the temporary reprieve for coal, industry experts remain skeptical of a lasting revival. The shift towards cleaner and more cost-effective energy sources like natural gas and renewables is likely to continue, making a lasting comeback for coal unlikely. While the Trump administration’s support may have delayed the decline of the coal industry, it may not be enough to turn the tide in the long run. President Trump’s executive order in April aimed to revitalize America’s coal industry, emphasizing the importance of clean coal resources in meeting rising electricity demand due to the resurgence of domestic manufacturing and the construction of artificial intelligence data processing centers. However, the implications of this directive are far-reaching, particularly in states like Virginia, which hosts over 600 data centers and handles a significant portion of global internet traffic.
The surge in power demand from data centers is projected to force utilities like Dominion Energy to import energy from fossil fuel plants beyond state borders, prolonging the operation of aging coal facilities in Ohio and West Virginia. Joe DeCarolis, an expert in energy policy, estimates that up to 25 gigawatts of coal capacity will continue operating until 2030 to meet the increased demand from data centers.
In South Carolina, the Santee Cooper utility faces challenges meeting data center demand, leading to delays in the closure of its Winyah Generation Plant in Georgetown. This facility has a history of air and water pollution violations, raising concerns among local residents and environmental advocates about the health and safety risks posed by coal-fired power plants.
Despite the push to revive the coal industry, Trump’s regulatory rollbacks have raised alarms among environmentalists and health advocates. The Environmental Protection Agency’s repeal of limits on toxic pollutants, greenhouse gases, and coal ash disposal has sparked criticism for prioritizing industry interests over public health. The Department of the Interior’s decision to open public lands for mining has also faced setbacks, with bids falling below market rates and projects collapsing in the West.
The United Mine Workers of America have expressed concern about the future of coal mining, particularly as global market dynamics shift. The decline in demand for metallurgical coal, coupled with challenges in exporting to countries like China, poses a threat to the livelihoods of coal miners in regions like Appalachia. Additionally, the industry’s failure to address worker safety issues, such as exposure to silica dust and black lung disease, has further strained relations between miners and industry leaders.
As the debate over coal’s role in America’s energy future continues, stakeholders grapple with the complex economic, environmental, and social implications of reviving a struggling industry in the face of evolving energy trends and regulatory challenges. Coal exports have seen a significant decline of 14 percent between January and September 2025, with international demand expected to plateau in the coming years as renewable energy sources continue to expand. This trend has led to a decrease in coal power generation in countries like China and India, after decades of growth in this sector.
The impact of this decline in coal exports is expected to have far-reaching consequences, with potential layoffs and shutdowns in the coal industry. This shift towards renewable energy sources is also reflected in the types of energy projects being developed. While the Trump administration’s goal of creating jobs and prosperity in extraction and energy production is commendable, the reality is that more investments are being made in gas plants, wind, and solar projects under the Biden administration.
Renewable energy sources have surpassed coal power in electricity generation for the first time last year, signaling a shift towards cleaner energy options. Harvard labor economist Gordon Hanson suggests that any efforts to revive the coal industry may be driven more by nostalgia than economic viability. He believes that many of the policies implemented by the Trump administration are symbolic rather than realistic in addressing the changing energy landscape.
In conclusion, the decline in coal exports and the shift towards renewable energy sources highlight the need for the coal industry to adapt to changing market dynamics. While the transition may be challenging, embracing cleaner energy options can lead to a more sustainable future for both the energy sector and the environment.
