The Trump administration has pledged $75 million to build a coal export terminal at the Port of Oakland, using the Defense Production Act — a Cold War-era law designed to mobilize industry during emergencies — to advance a project that local residents have attempted to block for more than a decade. The funding is part of a $700 million package of coal project investments President Donald Trump announced on June 4. The move has drawn sharp criticism from elected officials and environmental justice groups who say it overrides local democracy and threatens the health of one of California’s most pollution-burdened neighborhoods.
The planned terminal would sit on land formerly occupied by the Oakland Army Base, which closed in 1999. The site was purchased by developer Phil Tagami under a contract with the city. Tagami originally said he had no interest in shipping coal, but in 2015 he struck a deal to export Utah coal to overseas markets. The city of Oakland responded by banning coal handling and storage citywide in 2016. Tagami sued, and the project was tied up in litigation for years until the California Supreme Court ruled in September 2025 that the city’s ban violated its contract with the developer.
West Oakland, the neighborhood nearest the port, is “filled with pollutant-emitting industry and infrastructure,” according to an Environmental Protection Agency assessment cited in reports, which traces the area’s pollution burden to a history of redlining and systemic racism. Residents have long fought high childhood asthma rates and toxic waste left from the neighborhood’s industrial past.
Veronica Eady, executive director of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, said Trump’s announcement “accelerated everything.” She told the Guardian that the president’s stated goal of breaking ground this summer created “even more urgency.” Eady cautioned that the legal loss did not end the fight: “There may have been a misperception that once the city of Oakland lost, then it was over. We were getting out there to let people know: Hey, it’s not over. There are all these permitting decisions.”
California Assembly Member Mia Bonta said in a statement that the administration was “sentencing West Oakland, one of the most pollution-burdened communities in California, to generational harm.” She added: “The families who have fought the hardest to keep this terminal out of their neighborhood will bear the highest cost.”
Congresswoman Lateefah Simon, whose district includes Oakland, said in a statement: “The Trump administration does not have West Oakland’s best interests at heart. I am committed to using every tool in our toolbox to stop this coal terminal and fighting on behalf of our residents. Oaklanders and our bodies should not have to pay the price for the administration’s illogical, backwards policies.”
Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee, the former congresswoman, had not released a statement on the Trump announcement as of this article’s publication. During her campaign last year, she signed a pledge not to accept money from coal interests and said: “I strongly support Oakland’s ban on coal and will continue to fight against any attempts to bring coal shipments through our city.”
Despite the federal funding, the project still faces significant regulatory hurdles. Colin O’Brien, deputy managing attorney of Earthjustice’s California regional office, said: “This bad idea to build a dirty, polluting coal facility in an already overburdened community emerged more than a decade ago, and yet we still do not yet have concrete details on facility design or operations.” O’Brien called the funding announcement “far from the final word” because the project “still needs dozens of permits, meaning close scrutiny by local regulators and opportunities for the public to weigh in.”
Opponents are also focusing on the project’s financial viability. The terminal is expected to cost close to $400 million to build. Margaret Rossoff, a member of the No Coal in Oakland coalition, said the group’s strategy centers on financing. “$75m is not even a quarter of that,” she said. “Some investors need to decide to sink a lot of money into this. And our goal is to prevent them from doing that, prevent anyone from doing that, by making it clear that it’s a bad idea.” Rossoff said the coalition has printed yard signs and plans to distribute “hundreds more” so that “any potential investor who’s driving around the Bay Area is going to see evidence of the entrenched community opposition.”
Sarah Ranney, director of the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay chapter, criticized the use of the Defense Production Act, saying in a press release: “Trump is using the [Defense Production Act], which is meant to mobilize industries during a genuine emergency, to override that opposition. This isn’t national defense; it’s an end run around local democracy.”
The coalitions No Coal in Oakland and Keep Coal Out of the East Bay are planning a community meeting on June 25 in Berkeley. Organizers said the meeting will involve residents from across the East Bay because the trains transporting coal to the terminal would run through Martinez, Richmond, Berkeley, and other cities before reaching Oakland.