25 Jun Reclassifying Coal: The Geoeconomic Implications of Trump’s Strategic Mineral Order
STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE BRIEF
By,
Dr. Rafael Marrero. President & Founder, Miami Strategic Intelligence Institute (MSI²)
Washington’s decision to elevate coal to a strategic mineral marks a seismic shift in U.S. energy policy and national security posture, aimed squarely at China.
The White House has reclassified coal as a strategic mineral under Executive Order 14241. This decision aligns national energy dominance policy with the need to secure long-term energy sovereignty, support economic resiliency, and power emergent technologies.
This reclassification marks a decisive shift in U.S. critical mineral policy, placing domestic coal on par with rare earths and other inputs vital to national defense, grid modernization, and industrial independence.
The Coal Comeback: Redefined as a Strategic Asset
President Donald J. Trump’s administration has reclassified coal as a strategic mineral under a new White House executive order in a bold stroke reminiscent of the Cold War era. Once the symbol of America’s industrial past, coal is being recast as a national security asset—essential not only to U.S. energy independence but also to America’s capacity to resist Chinese industrial coercion and environmental dictates.
This shift places coal—long vilified in global climate diplomacy—into the same strategic tier as rare earth elements, uranium, and lithium. But this is more than just policy symbolism. The reclassification reflects a growing consensus among Trump-era policymakers: in the age of strategic competition, energy is not just a commodity but a weapon.
Strategic Context: From Industrial Fuel to Strategic Mineral
The reclassification of coal stems from a legal authority under the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. § 98 et seq.). It aligns with the 2020 Executive Order 13953, which declared a national emergency in the U.S. supply chain for critical minerals. While coal was previously excluded due to its domestic abundance and environmental concerns, the Trump administration now cites four justifications for its strategic reevaluation:
- National energy resiliency in the face of grid instability and cyberwarfare threats;
- Defense-grade metallurgy, with metallurgical (coking) coal essential for producing military-grade steel;
- Economic warfare readiness, allowing stockpiles to mitigate global energy market shocks;
- Strategic decoupling from China, especially in ESG-dominated financial environments, where coal access is weaponized via capital restrictions.
By reclassifying coal under this framework, Trump’s team has effectively declared that clean energy mandates driven by globalist institutions no longer dictate U.S. security doctrine.
Analysis: Four Strategic Dimensions of the Coal Pivot
1. Energy Sovereignty vs. Global ESG Pressure
Reclassifying coal marks a formal break with the Paris Climate Accords framework and its influence on U.S. industrial policy. This move signals that Washington will no longer allow environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards—shaped mainly by European institutions and Chinese green tech monopolies—to constrain American energy autonomy.
By declaring coal strategic, the U.S. now elevates the value of onshore fossil fuels in the same breath as renewables, framing the debate not as one of carbon neutrality but of energy resilience and civilizational sovereignty.
2. Military-Industrial Utility: The Steel-Chain of National Defense
Few understand that metallurgical coal, not just thermal coal, is indispensable to the U.S. defense sector. Military hardware—from aircraft carriers and tanks to hypersonic missile casings—requires high-strength steel, which in turn depends on high-grade coking coal.
China dominates global exports of metallurgical coal and steel, meaning the U.S. could be strategically blackmailed in a prolonged conflict or blockade scenario. Thus, the Trump administration shores domestic steel supply chains and ensures the continued production of critical defense assets (Geopolitical Futures, 2024).
3. Geoeconomic Response to China’s Resource Weaponization
The PRC has weaponized its control of resources—such as graphite, gallium, and rare earths—to punish countries like Japan, Lithuania, and the Philippines for political defiance. Reclassifying coal allows the U.S. to adopt a reciprocal framework, creating a legal basis for export controls, subsidies, and national stockpiles.
In this context, coal is not a fuel but a deterrent mechanism in a broader war of attrition over who controls the world’s industrial feedstocks.
4. The Domestic Manufacturing Rebuild
Trump’s coal order complements the broader reshoring and reindustrialization strategy that underpins America First 2.0. From steel plants in Pennsylvania to critical mineral refining facilities in West Virginia, the coal classification serves as a market signal to investors: legacy energy sources are once again welcome in the U.S. industrial base.
This will likely accelerate investment in dual-use infrastructure, where thermal coal supports the grid, and metallurgical coal powers defense-oriented manufacturing zones.
Implications for the U.S., Allies, and Adversaries
➤ For Federal Agencies
The Departments of Energy and Defense must update strategic materials inventories, potentially designating coal-related infrastructure as critical under CISA and DoD resilience programs. This includes funding backup coal-fired plants to counteract the risks of cyberattacks on renewable grids.
➤ For U.S. Industry
This reclassification will insulate domestic coal producers from ESG financial exclusion, as investments in “strategic minerals” enjoy carveouts under the Defense Production Act and the Inflation Reduction Act Section 60102 (WhiteHouse.gov, 2025). Expect renewed capital flows to Appalachia and the Midwest.
➤ For Allies
Expect energy realignment within the Five Eyes and Quad alliances. Japan and Australia—already major coal exporters—may now frame their exports as part of a Western strategic reserve system, helping Washington counter China’s green chokehold.
➤ For China
Beijing views this as a provocation—a signal that the U.S. is preparing for long-term resource decoupling. The coal pivot may also justify China’s reciprocal moves to restrict rare earth exports or retaliate diplomatically at COP summits.
Looking Ahead: Inflection Points and Risk Trajectories
This policy could ignite a new front in the economic Cold War, shifting battles from tariffs to commodities. Watch for the following flashpoints:
- G7 Climate Diplomacy Breakdown: With the U.S. embracing coal, transatlantic climate unity will fracture, likely leading to divergent emissions pathways and climate finance boycotts.
- Green Financing Counteroffensive: Wall Street’s ESG funds may be challenged legally if they refuse to support “strategic minerals,” triggering a legal clash over fiduciary duties vs. national interest.
- Energy Grid Militarization: Expect more coal-fired microgrids and hardened energy nodes near military installations, under the banner of grid warfare resilience.
Policy Recommendation
Congress should swiftly pass a Strategic Energy Sovereignty Act, formally incorporating coal into the National Defense Stockpile and authorizing tax credits, accelerated permitting, and military procurement linkages for domestic producers of metallurgical coal.
Simultaneously, the U.S. should lead a Western Strategic Minerals Compact, coordinating with allies to integrate coal, uranium, and rare earths into a NATO-like resource shield.
References
Financial Times. (2024). China’s critical minerals blackmail. https://www.ft.com
Geopolitical Futures. (2024). Steel, coal, and national security: A strategic reassessment. https://geopoliticalfutures.com
White House. (2025). Executive order on the designation of coal as a strategic mineral. https://www.whitehouse.gov
Enjoyed this analysis?
Enjoyed this analysis? Subscribe to MSI² on Substack for more strategic briefings: https://msi2.substack.com.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Miami Strategic Intelligence Institute (MSI²).