In a recent speech, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said that in the past, the agency “has tried to pick winners and losers…to put a thumb on the scale for a certain type of energy at the expense of others.” He indicated that the Trump administration would instead create a level playing field and stop giving preference to wind and solar energy over fossil fuels. In visits to a coal mine and a coal-fired power plant, Pruitt suggested that coal’s woes are the result of improper energy market intervention by the federal government.

But on a truly level playing field, coal would struggle to compete in energy markets. Current federal policies give coal enormous advantages, yet its market share has trended downward for years. Coal consumption for U.S. electricity has dropped 28% in the last decade, mainly due to declining prices for natural gas and renewable energy. If the government indeed eliminated market-distorting subsidies, coal’s problems would worsen.

For example, energy companies don’t pay for the damage caused by their pollution, amounting to a major advantage for coal over cleaner competitors. The fact that this subsidy is paid in public health damages—premature deaths and serious respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses—instead of dollars does not make it any less of a subsidy. A variety of policies, such as environmental regulations and emissions taxes, can help address this market distortion and boost coal’s contribution to paying its own way. The coal industry, and Scott Pruitt (in his former role as Oklahoma’s attorney general), have fought many of these policies vigorously.

Also, more than 40% of the coal produced in the U.S. is mined on federal land, and outdated policies allow companies access to these resources without paying fair market value. Leases are auctioned through noncompetitive processes, and coal companies are allowed to get away with accounting maneuvers to avoid paying the royalty rates owed to the federal treasury. For example, under current policies, companies routinely mask the profits on which they must pay royalties by selling coal to affiliate businesses before making external sales, and by deducting large, untraceable expenses as “transportation allowances.” A reform process was launched in 2016, but the Trump administration seems likely to shut it down. If companies paid fair value for coal mined on public lands, they would likely have to raise prices and lose even more market share to natural gas and renewable energy sources.

Coal also benefits from tax breaks and federal research and development funding. Coal companies receive tax benefits for mine exploration, development and investment. The Trump administration has discussed eliminating tax breaks for renewables, but not for coal. Additionally, the administration has proposed cutting R&D support for renewable technologies, but the government also spends a great deal each year on carbon capture and storage R&D, which benefits the coal industry. Many analysts believe that, in the future, coal will be viable only if coal-fired power plants can capture their carbon emissions, given the likelihood of stronger climate policies in the coming years. If the government cuts tax benefits and R&D funding across the board, and not just for renewables, investors might retreat further from coal.

The Trump administration has diagnosed a legitimate problem with distorted energy markets, but an honest attempt to stop picking winners would require eliminating all subsidies, many of which favor coal. During the campaign, Donald Trump frequently talked about “running the government as a business.” No self-respecting business would give coal the enormous, unwarranted benefits that the federal government does.