President Trump on Thursday said he will invoke Cold War-era emergency powers to direct a nearly $700-million investment into the waning coal industry, including $75 million for the construction of a new West Coast coal export terminal in Oakland.
Speaking from the White House, Trump said he will use the Defense Production Act, a 1950 law that grants the president emergency authority over domestic industries deemed critical to national security, to construct a new export terminal on the West Coast for the first time to move supplies overseas. He also announced the upgrading of 13 existing coal plants across the country, the construction of two new coal plants in Alaska and West Virginia, and restarting a shuttered coal plant in Maryland.
“Today we’re taking historic action to bring down the price of energy and the cost of living for all Americans with the power of clean, beautiful coal,” Trump said from the Oval Office. He was joined by U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Environmental Protection Agency administration Lee Zeldin and other top officials.
Trump and his energy advisors have said coal power is a matter of national security because of rising energy costs, primarily from the growth of artificial intelligence data centers. He declared a national energy emergency on his first day back in office, which was aimed at boosting domestic fossil fuel production.
High energy costs have also become an issue for voters, with residential electricity bills increasing nearly 11% since Trump resumed office in January 2025, according to the latest available data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The effort to establish a West Coast coal export terminal revives a fight that has played out repeatedly in recent years.
Beginning around 2010, the coal industry began pushing for new export sites in California, Oregon and Washington that would deliver coal from landlocked western states to energy-hungry markets in Asia. Those plans met fierce opposition from environmental groups and local communities concerned about climate impacts, coal dust, rail traffic and other potential downsides.
The plans were eventually abandoned, leaving the West Coast without a major U.S. coal export terminal — until now.
“Starting this summer, the West Gateway project will break ground and by summer 2028, over 12 million tons of clean beautiful coal per year will be shipped to countries all around the world,” Trump said.
The project will be sited at the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, a decommissioned Army Base near the entrance of the Bay Bridge operated by developer Phil Tagami, who has been trying for years to turn it into a marine shipping terminal. That effort has faced significant pushback from the city, which owns the land, and local residents and stakeholders.
The new funding from the Trump administration marks a significant step in turning that project into a reality. But local groups said they intend to fight the plan in court — probably by challenging whether coal export infrastructure qualifies as critical to national defense under the Defense Production Act, and whether the spending represents a proper use of federal funds.
“It is unconscionable to suggest the need for coal facilities in Oakland,” said Margaret Gordon, co-executive director of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project — particularly after state and local air regulators have spent millions trying to reduce emissions in the area, which has long experienced disproportionate pollution due to its proximity to the port and other industrial sites.
“The developers should expect an unrelenting uphill battle,” said Ben Eichenberg, a senior staff attorney at the San Francisco Baykeeper.
The U.S. Energy Department said coal exports from the terminal would go to “allied nations” including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and Malaysia.
“For too long, limited West Coast export capacity has constrained America’s ability to move coal and other energy resources to global markets,” said Wright. “By investing in both coal generation and critical export infrastructure, including the West Gateway Terminal Project, the Energy Department is strengthening U.S. energy security, reinforcing strategic supply chains, and advancing American energy dominance.”
But while the Trump administration leaned on coal as an energy cost solution, opponents said the move will actually increase soaring electricity prices — noting that renewables are generally cheaper than coal when it comes to new power generation in the U.S. A recent report from the nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation found that 99% of all U.S. coal plants are now more expensive to run than replacement by new local solar, wind or energy storage.
“This money could be used in increasing clean energy and efficiency programs that actually lower costs for working families and businesses,” said Sarah Ranney, director of Sierra Club San Francisco Bay chapter. “Instead, Trump’s wasteful handouts will continue making American energy more expensive and lock in more deadly pollution.”
The burning of coal is one of the largest drivers of air pollution, releasing fine particles known to be harmful to respiratory and cardiovascular health. Trump’s EPA in February weakened limits on mercury and other toxic air emissions from coal-fired power plants, stating that the action would reduce energy costs and improve grid reliability.
At the same time, coal is a leading driver of human-caused climate change, responsible for about 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions from fuel combustion.
Thursday’s announcement also follows the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to slow U.S. investment in renewable energy, particularly offshore wind power, electric vehicle initiatives and federal funding for solar projects.
But investing in coal in 2026 is akin to “a taxpayer bailout to build new phone booths,” said Kit Kennedy, managing director for power at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council.
“The Trump administration’s claim that this has to do with national security is just another false pretext,” Kennedy said. “Instead of bailing out dirty energy, why don’t they end their attacks on cheap, plentiful wind and solar power? That’s the surest way to cut our bills and end our dependence on volatile global energy markets.”
Kennedy added that the latest action from the White House will result in higher bills and dirtier air for Americans.
“The best thing for the air, the climate and our utility bills is to let these plants retire peacefully,” she said.
