For the first time, as predicted by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, in April renewables generated more electricity than power plants fueled by what was once called “King Coal.” Yet since he entered office, Mr. Trump has attempted to subsidize coal and protect it from competition, declaring that his administration has “ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.”

The secretary of energy, Rick Perry, for example, tried in 2017 to subsidize power plants that store at least a 90-day supply of coal on site, whether they needed it or not. Thankfully, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission , an independent agency, blocked that scheme last year.

But other proposals quickly followed. One of them, which the administration has hesitated to carry out, would compel — using emergency authority — electricity grid operators to purchase energy from failing coal companies. Mr. Trump has also imposed a 30 percent tariff on solar cell imports. And he is actively rolling back the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which sought to rein in carbon dioxide emissions.

Even when free-market advocates agree with Mr. Trump’s policies on coal, he leaves them wondering about his motives. For instance, he is seeking to relax pollution control regulations on coal-fired power plants imposed by the Obama administration. This would make a great deal of sense to economists like me if officials were able to demonstrate that those regulations are overly restrictive. But the president has not offered any such evidence, leaving even anti-regulatory economists like myself to attribute the effort to political considerations.

So far, little has come from all these initiatives, which mostly remain proposals. But if Mr. Trump appreciates economic freedom as much as he claims, he should realize that the best way to promote prosperity, not only for consumers but also for workers, is not to try to “pick winners.” Let the market decide.