Have you ever lost sleep wondering what pronouns to use for a lump of coal? Me neither. But apparently, someone at the U.S. Department of Energy has given it some thought and decided coal is a “she/her.”
Mimicking a phrase popular in the LGBTQ+ community, the department’s official X account tweeted on July 31: “She’s an icon. She’s a legend. And she is the moment,” alongside a glittering photo of coal. This comes as the Trump administration pours energy into reviving fossil fuels. The president has signed multiple orders to “Reinvigorate America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry” and rolled back Biden-era pollution rules for coal plants—plants that, according to a 2023 report, contributed to at least 460,000 American deaths over two decades. Those deaths dropped when the environmental regulations Trump now dismisses were in place.
So why is an administration that often treats women as objects suddenly personifying coal? For poetic effect? Or to soften coal’s deadly reputation by linking it to Mother Nature? I suspect the latter. Ships, for instance, have long been called “she,” perhaps seen as protective maternal figures. Countries, too, are often gendered female—especially when justifying violence. In 2023, after the October 7 attacks, as Gaza faced bombardment and blockade, Keir Starmer said Israel had “the right to defend herself.”
Sometimes, though, unnecessary gendering is just lazy sexism. For decades, Atlantic hurricanes were given only female names. When feminists pushed back in the 1980s, some claimed storms wouldn’t be taken seriously without evoking “female fury.” Even after meteorologists changed the policy, a 1986 Washington Post editorial complained male names lacked the “romance or urgency” of female ones.
Does gendering storms—or coal—matter? Probably not. But the coal post feels like a distraction, getting people to debate pronouns while the planet burns.
Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist.
Want to share your thoughts? Email us a response (up to 300 words) for potential publication in our letters section.
FAQS
### FAQs About *The Trump Administration Declared Coal a ‘She’ – Here’s the Reason Behind It*
#### **Basic Questions**
**1. Why did the Trump administration refer to coal as ‘she’?**
The Trump administration used female pronouns for coal in a 2018 press release, likely personifying it as a nurturing or resilient figure, though no official explanation was given.
**2. Was this an official policy change?**
No, it was just a stylistic choice in one press release—not a formal policy or linguistic shift.
**3. Did this actually impact the coal industry?**
No, it had no practical effect on coal regulations, jobs, or energy policies.
#### **Intermediate Questions**
**4. What was the public reaction to this phrasing?**
Reactions were mixed—some saw it as odd or humorous, while others viewed it as a symbolic gesture to humanize the industry.
**5. Has any other administration personified natural resources like this?**
Not commonly, though industries sometimes use gendered branding (e.g., ships as “she”).
**6. What was the context of the press release?**
It announced subsidies for coal plants, framing coal as vital to energy independence.
#### **Advanced Questions**
**7. Did this reflect broader Trump administration policies on coal?**
Yes—the administration consistently supported coal through deregulation and subsidies, though market trends still favored renewables.
**8. How does personifying coal affect public perception?**
It could evoke emotional connections, but critics argue it distracts from environmental and economic realities.
**9. Were there legal or linguistic implications to calling coal ‘she’?**
No, it was purely rhetorical with no legal or grammatical consequences.
#### **Miscellaneous**
**10. Where can I find the original press release?**
It was published on the Department of Energy’s website in June 2018 but may have been archived.
**11. Did environmental groups respond to this wording?**
Some mocked it as a distraction from coal’s declining viability and environmental harm.
**12. Is coal still referred to as ‘she’ today?**
No—this was a one-time phrasing and not adopted widely.
Let me know if you’d like any questions added or refined!
