President Trump signed an executive order Thursday directing $75 million in federal funding toward a new coal export terminal in Oakland, California, a project that has been stalled for a decade by political opposition, legal challenges, and environmental activism in one of the most progressive corners of the country.
Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon joined Trump in the Oval Office for the announcement. The terminal, known as the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, would primarily ship coal from Utah and Wyoming to buyers across Asia, with the White House projecting up to 12 million tons of annual exports once operations begin.
Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to order construction of the facility, bypassing the local resistance that has kept it tied up for years. A White House official told the New York Post that the federal funding will allow the project to break ground this summer, with coal shipments leaving the port by summer 2028.
The Oakland terminal has been mired in obstruction since its inception. Developer Phil Tagami fought the City of Oakland through the courts after the city terminated his lease for the project. Last year, the California Supreme Court ruled in Tagami's favor, finding that Oakland had wrongfully ended the agreement.
That legal win cleared one obstacle. But the project still lacked the funding and federal backing needed to move forward, until Thursday.
The executive order designates the terminal as the West Gateway Terminal. A White House official said it will run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and is expected to create more than 1,400 on-site jobs while supporting thousands more across the Western United States. Oakland's port ranks as the ninth largest in the nation, giving the terminal a natural logistical advantage for Pacific trade routes.
Trump framed the action in blunt economic terms during the Oval Office ceremony:
"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."
He added that coal remains a formidable energy source, calling it "really a big business" and "real power."
The executive order reaches well beyond the Oakland terminal. Trump directed $200 million to build two new coal plants, one in Alaska and one in West Virginia, which would be the first new coal-fired power plants constructed in the United States since 2013. The order also funds the restart of a coal plant in Maryland.
On top of that, $425 million will flow to 13 existing coal plants spread across 10 states: West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Arizona, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. A White House official estimated that these investments will save approximately 12,500 coal jobs nationwide.
The combined scope of the order, new construction, plant restarts, existing facility support, and the Oakland export terminal, amounts to a sweeping federal commitment to an industry that the previous administration worked to wind down. Trump has moved systematically to reverse many of the environmental regulations Joe Biden put in place during his presidency, and this order represents the most direct investment yet in coal infrastructure.
This pattern of executive action delivering policy wins where Congress has stalled has become a recurring theme in the current administration's approach.
Gov. Gordon, a Republican, emphasized that the Oakland terminal opens more than just a coal corridor. He pointed to the broader strategic value for mineral-rich Western states.
"It's not just about clean, beautiful coal. We believe we can get rare earth minerals and critical minerals from what we're doing."
Gordon also said the terminal will "allow states like New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah to have access to that Asian market", a point that underscores the economic isolation Western coal-producing states have faced as domestic demand has declined and progressive coastal cities have blocked export infrastructure.
The rare earth angle is worth watching. The United States remains heavily dependent on Chinese supply chains for the critical minerals needed in defense systems, electronics, and energy technology. If the Oakland terminal can handle mineral exports alongside coal, it could serve a dual strategic purpose that extends well beyond energy policy.
Not everyone in the Bay Area is celebrating. The San Francisco "No Coal" group rallied its members in April when reports first surfaced that the terminal would receive a funding boost. The group signaled that the fight is far from over.
"Leaders of the campaign are girding themselves for a new battle, one that will be waged outside the courtroom."
Environmental groups have protested the terminal's construction for years. But the California Supreme Court ruling in Tagami's favor removed the legal foundation for Oakland's obstruction, and the Defense Production Act gives the federal government authority that local officials will find difficult to override.
That dynamic, a progressive city losing control of a project within its own borders, reflects a broader tension playing out across the country. When local governments use regulatory power to block lawful economic activity for ideological reasons, federal intervention has increasingly provided the counterweight.
The "No Coal" group's promise to fight "outside the courtroom" is vague but telling. Having lost in court, opponents appear to be signaling that protests, political pressure campaigns, and permitting delays will be the next line of resistance.
Trump's use of the Defense Production Act to order construction of the terminal is a significant legal choice. The DPA, originally enacted during the Korean War, gives the president broad authority to direct private industry in the interest of national defense. Its application to coal infrastructure signals that the administration views energy production as a national security priority, not merely an economic one.
Previous administrations have invoked the DPA for pandemic supplies and semiconductor production. Applying it to coal export infrastructure is a different kind of statement, one that treats American energy dominance as a matter of strategic necessity.
The legal and political battles over executive authority continue to generate friction between the White House and the judiciary, but in this case, the administration appears to be on firm statutory ground. The DPA's text is broad, and courts have historically given presidents wide latitude in defining what constitutes a national defense interest.
Several questions remain open. The specific legal provisions of the Defense Production Act cited in the executive order have not been detailed publicly. The identity of the Maryland coal plant slated for restart has not been disclosed. And it is unclear which of the 13 existing plants across 10 states will receive shares of the $425 million in support funding.
The environmental opposition's next moves also remain undefined. The "No Coal" group's language about fighting "outside the courtroom" could mean anything from organized protests to lobbying state regulators to impose new permitting barriers. Whether California state agencies cooperate with or resist the federal directive will be a key variable in the project's timeline.
What is clear is the scale of the commitment. Between the Oakland terminal, the new plants in Alaska and West Virginia, the Maryland restart, and the support for 13 existing facilities, the executive order represents the largest single federal investment in coal infrastructure in years, possibly decades.
For a decade, a developer with a valid lease, a favorable court ruling, and a viable business plan could not build a coal terminal in Oakland because the local political establishment did not want it there. Environmental groups protested. The city killed his lease. Courts had to intervene.
Now the federal government has stepped in with $75 million and the full weight of the Defense Production Act. The terminal is expected to break ground this summer. Coal from Wyoming and Utah will move through the nation's ninth-largest port to Asian buyers who want it.
Oakland spent a decade trying to block a lawful project for ideological reasons. It took a president willing to act, and a law designed for national emergencies, to finally get a shovel in the ground. That says less about coal than it does about what happens when local governments substitute activism for governance.
