Trump is trying to prop up coal, oil, and gas—but the economics of fossil fuel are failing

Since the start of his second presidential term, Donald Trump has hampered the development of new clean energy projects and at the same time pushed to revive the coal industry. It’s a move energy experts have said doesn’t make sense for the climate or the country’s economy.

A new report by the the International Renewable Energy Agency (IREA) adds even more evidence to that argument: renewables “continue to prove themselves as the most cost-competitive source of new electricity generation,” the report reads; 91% of the renewable projects commissioned worldwide in 2024 delivered power at a cheaper cost than new fossil fuels.

Electricity generated from solar power is now 41% cheaper than the cheapest fossil fuel alternative, and onshore wind is 53% cheaper. In 2024, renewables helped avoid $467 billion in fossil fuel costs.

The IREA report coincides with a report from the United Nations that highlights “the economic imperative and opportunity for” transitioning to clean energy. Renewables are cheaper even as governments continue to subsidize fossil fuels: In 2023, governments spent $620 billion subsidizing fossil fuel consumption, compared to $70 billion for clean energy investments. (That $70 billion includes grants and rebates for EVs, heat pumps, and other efficiency improvements, which were a cornerstone of the Inflation Reduction Act.)

“Countries that cling to fossil fuels are not protecting their economies—they are sabotaging them,” United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said in a speech Tuesday, pointing to both reports. “Driving up costs. Undermining competitiveness. Locking in stranded assets. And missing the greatest economic opportunity of the 21st century.”

How the Trump administration pushes for more fossil fuels

Just hours into his second term, Trump made the United States one of those countries, signing an executive order declaring an energy emergency, citing a need to boost fossil fuel production. (Energy experts, however, have said there is no such crisis, and that ramping up fossil fuels while curtailing renewables like wind will actually hurt America’s energy landscape.)

In February, another executive order created a National Energy Dominance Council led by fossil fuel allies. In March, he issued an executive order to increase mining on public lands. And in April, Trump signed four executive orders to revive coal specifically—an industry that has long been in decline, with coal plants closing across the U.S. because they are no longer profitable.

Those orders opened up new mining leases, loosened coal plant emission standards, and included the option for the Department of Energy to reopen shuttered coal plants, or force coal plants that were going to close to keep operating. Trump has also sped up the permitting process for fossil fuels, taking it from years to just days.

Just recently, in July, Trump granted two years of regulatory relief to coal plants, as well as chemical manufacturers and other big polluters, allowing them to comply with previous Environmental Protection Agency standards from before the Biden administration. Coal plants can also delay efforts to clean up coal ash, which contains toxic metals like lead and mercury. Trump had already exempted dozens of coal plants from air pollution rules as well.

Trump has repeatedly said his support of coal and other fossil fuels is a way to strengthen the reliability and security of the country’s energy grid. But experts have said those moves will actually increase utility costs for Americans, and that fossil fuels are actually less reliable and more vulnerable to market disruptions. Oil and gas prices are set globally and so can be influenced by geopolitical turmoil, like when Russia invaded Ukraine and oil and gas prices soared.

In contrast, “renewables are here to stay because they are the foundation of energy security and sovereignty,” Guterres said. “Let’s be clear: The greatest threat to energy security today is in fossil fuels.”