EO-14386
Strengthening United States National Defense With America's Beautiful Clean Coal Power Generation Fleet
- Signed
- Feb 11, 2026
- Published
- Feb 17, 2026
Federal Register: 2026-03156
Source: Federal Register.
Direct Military to Buy Coal Power for Defense Installations
Impact4/10
What it does
This order directs the Department of War (DOW) to pursue long-term Power Purchase Agreements with coal-fired power plants to supply electricity to military installations and other mission-critical defense facilities. It frames coal as essential to national security by citing its reliability as a continuous, on-demand energy source. The order builds on a previously declared national energy emergency and prior executive orders promoting coal use.
Who benefits
Coal-fired power plant owners and operators who gain access to stable, long-term federal contracts. Coal mining companies and their workers who would see increased demand for coal. Communities in coal-producing regions (Appalachia, Wyoming's Powder River Basin, Illinois Basin) that depend on the coal industry economically. Defense contractors and military installation operators who prioritize grid reliability. Electricity grid operators in regions where coal provides baseload power.
Who is affected
Natural gas, nuclear, and renewable energy companies that compete for federal power contracts and may lose business to coal providers. Military installation communities near coal plants that may face air quality impacts. Taxpayers who may bear higher long-term energy costs if coal contracts are priced above market alternatives. Defense Department budget planners who must absorb contract costs subject to appropriations. Workers in competing energy sectors. Communities near military bases that host coal-powered facilities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that coal's on-site fuel stockpiling capability makes it uniquely resistant to supply-chain disruptions, cyberattacks, and extreme weather events that could cripple intermittent or pipeline-dependent energy sources. They contend that the Commander-in-Chief's core duty to maintain military readiness fully authorizes the president to direct procurement decisions that protect the operational continuity of defense installations, and that long-term coal contracts would insulate the military grid from price volatility and foreign energy dependencies.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that locking the military into long-term coal contracts could increase energy costs relative to cheaper natural gas or renewable alternatives, diverting defense dollars from other readiness priorities. They contend that procurement decisions of this kind require congressional appropriations authority and competitive bidding processes under federal acquisition law, and that directing a specific fuel source by executive order may conflict with statutory procurement rules and existing Department of Defense energy diversification mandates.
Constitutional basis
Executive orders rest on constitutional authority or statutory delegation. This summary describes the legal grounding cited or implied by the order.
The order draws on the Commander-in-Chief Clause (Article II, §2, cl. 1), which grants the president authority over military operations and readiness, including the logistical support of military installations. It also references the national energy emergency declared under Executive Order 14156, which invokes broad statutory emergency powers. Implementation is explicitly conditioned on the availability of congressional appropriations, acknowledging the Appropriations Clause (Article I, §9, cl. 7) as a binding constraint.