Trump Administration wants to revive the coal industry, including mining on federal land and reducing regulations

Photo by Dominik Vanyi on Unsplash

The Trump Administration’s plans to revive the coal industry include leasing 13.1 million acres of federal land for coal mining and reducing the royalty rate for coal, Brad Plumer and Lisa Friedman of The New York Times reported.

Additionally, regulations that “curb carbon dioxide, mercury and other pollutants from coal plants” will be repealed by the Environmental Protection Agency, Plumer and Friedman wrote.

This has led to concerns from environmental groups, activists and politicians about the harmful impacts of coal mining on the environment and its contribution to climate change.

Yet a surge in American electricity needs was already threatening climate goals, due to the inability for renewable and other sources of energy to keep up to demands.

The rise in usage of artificial intelligence has led to the construction of data centers that consume enormous amounts of electricity. More than 50 coal plants that were set to close have remained open to meet this demand.

Doug Burgum, Secretary of the Interior, cited China’s expansion of coal plants and the threat of losing the “AI arms race” as reasons that the United States needed to invest in coal.

However, unlike the U.S. which is boosting coal while rolling back renewable energy efforts, China is also investing renewable energy and as a result has managed to sink carbon emissions by around 1% despite its usage of coal.

Opinion: Public lands should not be sold. Open lands are our shared 'inheritance. . . and space of democracy'

Humpback whale joyfully feeding in the Kenai Fjords, Alaska. (NPS Photo by K. Thoresen)

Even though lawmakers ultimately rejected the sale of public lands as part of the federal budget bill called the Big Beautiful Bill, that doesn’t mean the idea won't come around again. In her opinion for The New York Times, Terry Tempest Williams explains what motivated Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and other like-minded Republicans to push for the provision and why so many Americans opposed it.

Had it passed, the provision would have facilitated the sale of more than one million acres of public lands; however, the loss of public property wouldn't be the only consequence. "Lee claimed in each of his many revisions of the proposal that disposing of our public lands was a way to address the housing crisis," Williams writes. "But that was a ruse; housing experts have said it wouldn’t have made a dent in the problem. What the senator wanted was to establish a precedent — to normalize selling off our public lands to generate cash to pay for tax cuts. Open that door, and the open space of democracy closes."

Porcupine caribou mothers go to Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 
Alaska for calving season. (Photo by P. Maher, CPAWS) 

As lawmakers wrangled over the provision, a dramatic rejection of the idea came from "over 100 conservation groups and public lands advocates, as well as hunters, anglers, ranchers, recreationists and right-wing influencers," Williams explains. The sale legislation failed because "in addition to Democrats, four Republican senators from Montana and Idaho refused to vote for it. . . five Republican House representatives from Western states said it was a 'poison pill.' . . . America’s public lands are safe — for now."

Americans made it known to Congress that their lands were not for sale. "Members of Congress learned once again that if they don’t support public lands, they risk being voted out of office, especially in the American West," Williams writes. "What we saw was collective outrage fueled by love — energy we must nurture and draw on in the months and years to come."

Lee isn't the first politician to look at federal lands and see the money privatization could bring. According to Williams, Americans must remain stalwart protectors of their public "inheritance" that remains home to vastly different kinds of wildlife and broad expanses of landscapes found nowhere else on the planet. Williams writes, "What I feel more deeply now is that open lands inspire open minds. This is the open space of democracy." 

Building housing on federal lands could help some Americans, but the idea faces limits and obstacles

Most federal lands are located in the West. Map includes Native American lands held in trust.
(Bureau of Land Management map via Wikipedia)

Many Americans continue to struggle with the country's longstanding shortage of affordable housing. Opening some federal lands to real estate development is one solution the Trump administration has put in motion; however, the prospect faces numerous challenges and is limited by the geography of federal lands.

"Last month, federal officials created a task force that would identify and release federal land that could be used for housing development," reports Madeleine Ngo of The New York Times. The initiative has bipartisan support and could be particularly helpful for western states. The idea is not a solution for states that don't have swaths of federal lands, which tend to be east of the Mississippi.

The obstacles developers face include a lack of existing infrastructure, such as water and sewer, and resistance from environmental groups that want federal lands protected against human intrusion. Also, some western residents dislike the idea of more neighbors and work against development.

The concept could provide thousands of homes in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Wyoming, Oregon, Idaho and Colorado. Ngo explains, "Some analyses have found that releasing more federal land could result in the construction of millions of new homes. Selling about 544,000 acres of developable land — or about 0.2 percent of the land that the Bureau of Land Management oversees — could result in the construction of 1.5 million new homes on land near existing cities over the next decade."

Even with bipartisan support, the process of moving the idea from a concept to active development could be slow and doesn't address the problem in the eastern half of the country. "Releasing federal land could take years because of stringent procedures, and the federal effort alone would not be enough to make up the nation’s entire shortfall of homes," Ngo reports. "Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giant, has estimated that the nation is short about 3.7 million housing units."

Even with its limitations, some builders are enthusiastic about the possibilities. Ngo adds, "Dan Dunmoyer, the president of the California Building Industry Association, said the biggest challenge facing homebuilders in the state was a shortage of land that was both affordable and suitable for housing development." He told her, “Land is hard to find. If there is land that’s adjacent to urban cores that’s available, that would be of interest to us.”

Opinion: Americans should be alarmed at the 'dangerous idea' Congress is floating, which could 'kill' rural America

A couple cares for fencing in Dark Sky, Oregon, an area
that is mostly comprised of public lands. (Instagram)

 

Inside a recent congressional budget reconciliation discussion, an alarming suggestion was made: Allow Congress to sell public lands to private investors, writes Tim David in his opinion for The Daily Yonder. Although lawmakers indicate sale proceeds would increase federal revenue, the loss of public lands would devastate some rural economies "where public lands aren’t just a backdrop, they’re the backbone of the economy and the way of life."

Even as lawmakers say they care about rural livelihoods, selling public assets would harm many rural communities, particularly those in the West. "From grazing and outfitting to hunting, fishing, and tourism, these lands sustain small businesses, support working families, and keep rural economies afloat," David explains. "If Congress truly wants to support rural America, it can start by investing in the agencies that manage these lands, not liquidating the lands themselves."

Congress has spent years asking the Bureau of Land Management "to do more with less," David writes. "Some of the loudest voices criticizing the BLM are the same ones voting to strip its funding. It’s a political double standard: criticize the agency for being slow or ineffective, then gut the very budget that allows it to function, and turn around and blame it again when things don’t get done."

Considering its ever-shrinking budget, it's unsurprising that "public lands and the rural communities that depend on them are feeling the strain," David adds. "Across the West, deteriorating roads, neglected infrastructure, and staff shortages are leaving public access routes impassable and economic opportunities squandered. Local businesses are losing revenue right when tourism and recreation seasons should be ramping up."

What those in Washington may see as a budget line that needs reduction, are real Americans working and serving in the communities where they live. "These are folks who know every rancher by name, who raise their families in the same towns, and who show up for volunteer projects and community events," David explains. "When Congress cuts funding, it’s not just abstract numbers. It’s fewer people to maintain campgrounds, issue grazing permits, support outfitters, and help prevent wildfires. It’s not the agency that suffers, it’s rural America."

Congress needs to seek out different solutions. "If Congress truly wants to help rural America, it starts with two things: fund the BLM like it matters, and keep our public lands public," David writes. "If Congress continues to underfund the BLM and entertains a wholesale sell-off of public lands, it won’t just hurt rural America. It will kill it."

Funding system for rural schools that overlap with national forests is 'brutal.' Advocates seek a new solution.

Trinity Alps office building in Weaverville, California, pop. 3,667.
(Trinity Alps Unified School District photo via The Daily Yonder)

A lack of support for the 20-year-old Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act program has rural schools in 41 states preparing for a possible loss of vital funding. Leaders of those rural schools are advocating for a renewal of funding and a better plan for more secure funding in the future. 

"The law was up for re-authorization in 2024 but died last December without a vote from the House of Representatives," report Claire Carlson and Lane Wendell Fischer of The Daily Yonder. "The Senate had already voted unanimously to approve it."

The federal program provides money to counties that include National Forest land. "Because public land cannot be used or taxed for local interests, the SRS program offsets this loss of local revenue by allocating federal funds to support essential community infrastructure like roads and schools," Carlson and Fischer explain. "SRS requires regular re-authorization, typically every three years, and is often accompanied by reductions in funding."

In 2016, SRS funding wasn't approved in time, and schools missed a year of needed funding. The same thing may happen in 2025. Jamie Green, superintendent of Trinity Alps Unified School District in rural Trinity County, California, told the Yonder, “This every three-year thing, it’s brutal. Absolutely brutal.”

In 2023, Trinity Alps was allotted $600,000 from SRS. "These funds accounted for 5% of the district’s budget and were essential in paying for teachers, programming, and maintenance work," the Yonder reports. "With no clear path toward re-authorization, Green’s current goal is to do what he can to cushion Trinity Alps for the looming shortfall."

With the ongoing potential for funding gaps or reductions within the program, advocates want a longer-term solution. Mark Haggerty, a senior fellow at the independent nonprofit research institute Center for American Progress, favors establishing a trust. He told the Yonder, "A trust makes sure that communities have the resources they need. . . . It’s not asking the taxpayers for permanent appropriations, and it’s not adding to the debt. But it gives counties and schools predictable payments that they can rely on."

To read about obstacles a trust faces, click here. 

Rural Nevada leaders seek a voice in massive energy builds, but almost 80% of their land is federally managed

Across western federal lands, some renewable energy expansion is going at such a frenetic pace that rural county officials in Nevada can't keep up with the requests, reports Jeniffer Solis of the Nevada Current. "Several rural counties are now asking state lawmakers to establish a policy requiring federal agencies to coordinate all their land use planning and management decisions with state and county governments when considering massive utility-scale energy projects. . . . As of June, there are over 130 pending applications to build renewable energy projects across Nevada’s public lands. Most of those projects are in rural counties, where as much as 80% of land is federally managed."

NV Energy photo

Currently, Nevada lacks a statewide utility-scale solar plan, which exacerbates the problem for local governments.  In fact, county officials from Eureka and Lander County told state lawmakers that managing the sheer number of clean energy projects coming to their offices isn't workable because they lack staff and management capacity. Solis writes. "Rural governments told lawmakers that the intensity and scale of utility-scale energy proposals they are seeing in their counties will require targeted state policy to support and protect rural economies."

Eureka and Lander County lands are included in the "proposed Greenlink North Transmission Project — a 235-mile transmission line along Highway 50, which is expected to attract more solar projects in the coming years," Solis explains. And while the project is expected to bring thousands of good-paying jobs to the state, county officials want their offices and residents to have a say in local installations and time to prepare for the profound changes the builds are sure to bring.

Eureka County’s natural resources manager, Jake Tibbitts, "proposed amending state policy to clarify that federal agencies are expected to enter formal agreements with local governments in Nevada when considering projects on public land in their county," Solis reports. "Under the proposed amendment, those agreements would need to include a detailed coordination plan. . .especially when addressing conflicts between local land use plans and federal plans."

Solis adds, "But like Nevada as a whole, land in Eureka County is largely administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, leaving the county at the whims of federal land use policy."