A bipartisan Russia sanctions bill championed by the late Senator Lindsey Graham is facing growing resistance in Congress as lawmakers debate provisions that would significantly expand President Donald Trump’s authority to impose tariffs on countries trading with Russia. While the legislation has gained momentum following Graham’s death and Trump’s endorsement, its controversial trade measures now threaten to overshadow its original objective of increasing pressure on Moscow over the war in Ukraine.
The bill would impose sanctions on Russian officials while authorizing the president to levy tariffs of up to 100 percent on the five largest importers of Russian oil and natural gas or on countries deemed to be helping Russia evade existing sanctions. Although no countries are explicitly named, analysts believe the measures could affect China, India and potentially several European countries and Japan.
Tariffs Become the Political Battleground
What was originally designed as a sanctions package has increasingly become a debate over trade policy.
The tariff provisions gained importance after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Trump’s reciprocal tariff policy earlier this year, leaving the administration searching for new legal authority to pursue its trade agenda. The legislation would effectively provide the White House with another mechanism to impose broad trade restrictions through national security legislation.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
The bill also extends sanctions on Iran’s energy and weapons sectors for another five years, reflecting the administration’s effort to merge several foreign policy priorities into a single legislative package.
Broad Senate Support but House Uncertainty
The legislation has advanced comfortably through procedural votes in the Senate with broad bipartisan backing and could pass the chamber before lawmakers leave for the summer recess.
Its prospects in the House of Representatives, however, remain far less certain.
Several senior Democrats have warned that the proposal grants excessive authority to the executive branch while risking higher inflation through new tariffs. Republican lawmakers are also divided, with Senator Rand Paul preparing amendments that would restrict the president’s tariff powers and others expressing concerns over expanding executive authority.
The House’s August recess and the approaching midterm election campaign may further delay consideration of the legislation.
Ukraine Wants Action Before Winter
Ukraine has urged lawmakers not to allow domestic political disagreements over tariffs to delay additional pressure on Russia.
Kyiv argues that new sanctions before winter could further restrict Moscow’s ability to finance military operations at a critical stage of the war. Ukrainian officials have warned that prolonged legislative delays would reduce the immediate effectiveness of any new economic measures.
Trade Policy Is Becoming a Foreign Policy Weapon
The legislation represents a significant evolution in the use of economic statecraft.
Rather than targeting only sanctioned individuals or companies, it would authorize secondary tariffs against entire countries that continue purchasing Russian energy or facilitate sanctions evasion. This expands Washington’s economic toolkit beyond traditional financial sanctions and could fundamentally reshape how the United States applies pressure on geopolitical rivals.
If enacted, tariffs would become an increasingly important instrument of strategic competition alongside sanctions and export controls.
Global Trade Could Face New Pressures
The bill’s impact would likely extend well beyond Russia.
Countries heavily dependent on Russian energy imports, including China and India, could become direct targets of punitive tariffs. Even some U.S. allies may face greater uncertainty if they are accused of facilitating sanctions circumvention.
Such measures risk creating fresh tensions within the global trading system while complicating relations with countries whose cooperation Washington also needs on broader strategic issues.
A Debate Over Presidential Power
Beyond Russia, lawmakers are debating whether Congress should grant presidents such sweeping trade authority.
Although the legislation contains a five year sunset clause, legal and trade experts note that governments rarely surrender powers once they acquire them. Critics fear the bill could establish a precedent allowing future administrations to use tariffs more aggressively under the banner of national security.
The legislation therefore raises constitutional and institutional questions that extend well beyond the Ukraine conflict.
Political Divisions Could Delay Russia Strategy
Despite widespread bipartisan support for increasing pressure on Moscow, the legislation illustrates how domestic politics can complicate foreign policy.
With congressional elections approaching and control of Congress potentially shifting after November, some lawmakers appear reluctant to approve a measure that substantially expands presidential authority. As a result, disagreement over tariffs not support for Ukraine has emerged as the principal obstacle to one of the most significant Russia sanctions packages currently before Congress.
Analysis
The legislation reflects an important shift in how Washington views economic statecraft. Rather than relying solely on traditional sanctions against individuals and companies, the bill introduces secondary tariffs that could penalize entire countries for maintaining economic ties with Russia. If enacted, it would significantly expand the role of tariffs as a foreign policy instrument.
However, these broader powers have transformed what was once a largely bipartisan sanctions package into a contentious debate over presidential authority. The controversy now extends beyond Russia policy and into the long running domestic dispute over executive control of trade policy.
The bill also highlights the growing intersection of geopolitics and global commerce. Countries that continue purchasing Russian energy could face economic penalties, potentially creating new tensions with major U.S. trading partners and complicating coordination among allies that have largely maintained a united sanctions regime since the invasion of Ukraine.
Another major concern is precedent. Although the legislation includes a five year sunset clause on the tariff authority, trade experts note that governments rarely surrender powers once they have acquired them. If approved, the bill could permanently reshape the balance between Congress and the presidency in determining U.S. trade policy.
Finally, domestic politics may prove decisive. With congressional elections approaching and Democrats potentially positioned to gain greater influence after November, some lawmakers appear willing to postpone major sanctions legislation rather than approve a bill that substantially strengthens presidential tariff authority. As a result, bipartisan support for Ukraine may not be enough to guarantee the legislation’s passage in its current form.
With information from Reuters.
