The Trump administration has spent $2.7 billion in taxpayer money to block offshore wind development while directing $1.125 billion toward propping up the coal industry, a spending spree that critics say is driving up electricity rates for ordinary Americans while enriching energy corporations that backed the president's campaign.
The Department of the Interior has executed four separate agreements since March, paying energy companies to abandon a combined eight offshore wind projects and redirect investment toward fossil fuels. The most recent deal involving Duke Energy was announced last month. The initial agreement with TotalEnergies in March prompted a lawsuit from seven Democratic-controlled states, which alleged the arrangement constituted illegal use of federal funds.
The strategy marks a dramatic departure from past administrations. While previous governments have canceled or delayed energy projects through permitting decisions, litigation, or regulatory action, experts say there is no historical precedent for the federal government directly paying developers to surrender legally obtained offshore wind leases.
"They are trying to snuff out an entire form of energy," said Jenny Rowland-Shea, senior director for conservation policy at the Center for American Progress. "And it's at a time when the United States needs more energy, as people's rates are going up for electricity, as we see datacenters gobbling up more energy."
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has aggressively expanded coal subsidies. In September, the Department of Energy announced $625 million in spending to extend coal plant lifespans, including $350 million for modernization work and $175 million for rural coal projects. Last month, the department allocated up to $500 million from the Defense Production Act to boost capacity at 13 coal plants and fund construction of a coal export terminal in Oakland. An additional $3.6 million went toward refurbishing nine existing coal facilities.
The White House disputed characterizations of the spending as subsidies. Spokesperson Taylor Rogers said the administration was "not spending taxpayer dollars on these deals," claiming the offshore wind arrangements involved returning money that companies had previously bid on projects deemed unviable due to national security concerns. She stated the companies were voluntarily redirecting those returned amounts toward alternative energy sources.
Energy policy experts and Democratic officials rejected that framing. Rowland-Shea noted that money from energy leases on public lands and waters enters public accounts, meaning the administration is effectively paying companies to avoid developing clean energy projects.
The economic case against coal is stark. A 2023 analysis from Energy Innovation found that 99 percent of domestic coal-fired power plants cost more to operate than replacing them with renewable alternatives would. Coal generation in 2024 cost 28 percent more than it did in 2021. Research firm Grid Strategies estimated that if all scheduled coal plant retirements were prevented through 2028, ratepayers would face at least $3.12 billion in additional costs.
Coal also carries documented public health consequences. A 2023 study attributed approximately 460,000 deaths in the United States between 1999 and 2020 to air pollution from coal plant emissions alone.
The coal support initiative extends beyond direct spending. The administration has reduced federal coal royalty rates from 12.5 percent to 7 percent, cutting the revenue that coal companies pay to extract resources from public lands. Wyoming alone estimates this change will cost the state $50 million annually. The administration also held the largest U.S. coal leasing sale in more than a decade in October, though the single bid submitted was rejected.
Jay Inslee, former Washington governor, characterized the administration's approach as a wealth transfer to fossil fuel donors. "Trump is getting Americans coming and going," he said. "He's forcing higher power bills on them by blocking clean energy, then he's fattening the wallets of his cronies, all with billions of our tax dollars."
Gabrielle Levy, a spokesperson for Climate Action Campaign, emphasized the futility of the spending. "These coal plants that are being supported by the government are coal plants that were going to close down because they couldn't keep themselves open on their own," she said. "We're paying as taxpayers to keep economically unviable plants open, and meanwhile those are doing immeasurable harm to the local environment, to people's health, and to the climate, which costs us more, too."
Author James Rodriguez: "This is corporate welfare disguised as energy policy, and working families are paying for it twice over."
Comments