Sanctions Bill on Import from Russia Finds Favour in Senate

A bipartisan bill in the Senate would allow President Trump to impose tariffs on the biggest importers of Russian energy.

Key Development

· The U.S. Senate advanced a bipartisan sanctions bill targeting Russia and Iran, while also granting President Donald Trump broad new authority to impose tariffs on countries trading with Russia.

· The legislation was designed by the late Senator Lindsey Graham to strengthen pressure on Russia over the Ukraine war and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Expanded Tariff Powers

· If enacted, the bill would authorize the President to:

o Impose 500% tariffs on imports from Russia, mainly fertilizers.

o Impose tariffs of up to 100% on imports from the largest purchasers of Russian oil and natural gas.

o Levy tariffs of up to 100% on countries that help Russia evade sanctions.

· The legislation effectively restores part of the tariff authority that the U.S. Supreme Court curtailed earlier in 2026.

Countries Potentially Affected

· The measure could impact imports from major buyers of Russian energy, including:

o China

o India

o European Union member states

· Billions of dollars of imports from these economies could become subject to additional U.S. tariffs.

Presidential Discretion

· The legislation gives President Trump significant flexibility:

o He may waive sanctions if he determines doing so serves the U.S. national interest.

o Any waiver would require an explanation to Congress.

· This reflects the administration's preference for retaining flexibility in trade and foreign policy negotiations.

Concerns Over Broad Executive Authority

· The bill represents another instance of Congress delegating trade authority to the executive branch.

· Critics argue that President Trump has frequently stretched the limits of existing tariff laws.

· Trade experts warned that ambiguous wording in the legislation could allow the administration to apply tariffs more broadly than originally intended.

Business and Industry Opposition

· Nearly two dozen major U.S. trade organizations opposed the tariff provisions, including:

o U.S. Chamber of Commerce

o Retail Industry Leaders Association

o National Foreign Trade Council

· They argued that:

o Large tariffs would increase costs for businesses and consumers.

o Supply chains and pricing decisions would become more uncertain.

o Tariffs would function as a blunt instrument that could hurt compliant U.S. companies.

Political Debate

· Although the bill enjoys strong bipartisan support in the Senate, its prospects in the House remain uncertain.

· Several Democrats oppose expanding presidential tariff powers.

· Senator Maggie Hassan argued that tariffs ultimately raise costs for American businesses and households without helping Ukraine.

Changes Made Before Senate Approval

· Last-minute amendments narrowed the tariff provisions by:

o Limiting eligibility to the five largest importers of Russian oil and gas.

o Allowing tariff reductions or exemptions for countries that significantly reduce purchases of Russian energy.

Background

· In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump's use of emergency powers to impose tariffs was unlawful and ordered roughly US$160 billion in tariff revenue to be refunded.

· Subsequently, the administration relied on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose tariffs of around 10% on imports from more than 80 countries, citing inadequate enforcement of forced-labour import restrictions.

Trump's Trade Strategy

· President Trump has increasingly favored tariffs over traditional sanctions as a foreign policy tool.

· He previously imposed tariffs on India over its purchases of Russian oil, though the measure failed to reduce India's imports and was later withdrawn.

· The administration has also announced plans to impose 100% tariffs on imported generic medicines from 2028.

Russian Response

· The Russian Embassy in Washington criticized the legislation, arguing that restricting Russian energy exports amid Middle East tensions would:

o Worsen global energy shortages.

o Raise fuel prices in the United States.

o Harm American consumers ahead of U.S. midterm elections.

Significance

· The bill combines sanctions with expanded tariff powers, making trade policy a central instrument of U.S. foreign policy.

· If enacted, it could:

o Intensify trade tensions with major economies purchasing Russian energy.

o Increase uncertainty for global supply chains.

o Further expand presidential authority over U.S. trade policy despite ongoing legal and political controversy.

[ABS News Service/30.07.2026]

The sanctions legislation that moved forward in the Senate this week goes beyond enacting new financial restrictions on Russia and Iran. It also gives President Trump broad new powers to impose tariffs on imports from some of the world’s largest economies.

The bipartisan bill, which was designed by the late Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, was intended to demonstrate that Congress is unified in its desire to punish Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But tucked inside the legislation are tools that would give the Trump administration sweeping discretion to impose steep tariffs on major buyers of Russian energy products. The measure would restore some of the trade authorities that the Supreme Court stripped away when it ruled against Mr. Trump’s use of tariffs on national security grounds earlier this year.

It if becomes law, the bill would allow Mr. Trump to impose 500 percent tariffs on Russian imports, which include mostly fertilizers, and tariffs as high as 100 percent on the largest importers of Russian oil and gas. Countries that help Russia evade sanctions could also face tariffs as high as 100 percent.

The policy could lead to additional levies on billions of dollars’ worth of products imported from China, India and European Union countries.

The bill represents the latest move by Congress to cede more of its authority over trade policy to Mr. Trump. It also comes amid bipartisan anger over the president’s provocative use of tariffs, which has led to retaliation from other countries and uncertainty for businesses.

Scott Lincicome, a trade expert at the free-markets-oriented Cato Institute, said that some of the key language in the legislation is murky and that Mr. Trump has shown he will push the limits of his tariff powers.

“The president has demonstrated repeatedly that he is willing to exploit any ambiguity in a tariff statute that lets him impose additional import taxes,” Mr. Lincicome said. “When you’re dealing with Trump, you should be extremely reluctant to give him new tariff powers.”

Despite last-minute changes to reduce the potential impact of the tariffs on American companies, the bill leaves room for the White House to interpret who are the biggest buyers of Russian energy products, which could open the door to a more expansive use of tariffs.

The legislation also gives Mr. Trump, who has at times been reluctant to punish Russia with sanctions, the leeway not to impose them by issuing a waiver and providing Congress with an explanation of why he believes an exemption is in the national interest. The president has argued that he needs flexibility when it comes to tariffs and sanctions when negotiating with other countries.

In a social media post, the Russian Embassy in the United States assailed the sanctions legislation and said it was doing America a disservice.

“Given growing instability in the Persian Gulf and war with Iran, with a looming energy crisis and prices going up at gas stations right on the eve of midterm elections, sanctioning Russia and its trade partners in order to block Moscow’s natural resources exports would be highly counterproductive for the U.S. itself,” the embassy said.

The potential for Mr. Trump to gain more power to unilaterally impose tariffs has rattled industries that were already struggling to cope with the gyrations of his trade agenda. Over the last year, Mr. Trump has continuously added, adjusted and removed tariffs as he sought to gain negotiating leverage with American trading partners. That has left companies struggling to plan how to source the products they buy and how to set their prices.

As they rushed to finalize the bill ahead of Mr. Graham’s funeral on Tuesday, lawmakers met resistance from lobbyists who are anxious about giving Mr. Trump more tariff authority.

“The potential of new, broad, 100 percent tariffs on imports from secondary countries risks raising costs for American businesses, workers and consumers,” a group of nearly two dozen trade associations wrote in a letter to Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the Republican majority leader, and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic minority leader.

“Tariffs of this scale would increase costs for everyday consumer goods, manufacturing inputs and other products while creating significant uncertainty for companies making sourcing, pricing and inventory decisions months in advance.”

The lobbying groups include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Industry Leaders Association and the National Foreign Trade Council. They asked lawmakers to remove the tariff authority in the bill and warned that tariffs were “a blunt tool that can penalize law-abiding U.S. companies.”

The fate of the bill in the House is unclear, as some top Democrats have already expressed opposition to giving Mr. Trump more tariff authority. However, the bipartisan support in the Senate suggests that it could pass. Still, some Senate Democrats have also expressed reservations.

“I do not think tariffs, which are paid for by American businesses and consumers, will help Ukraine win this war,” Senator Maggie Hassan, a Democrat from New Hampshire, wrote on social media following the vote. “ And over the last year, it’s become more clear that President Trump will use any legal — or illegal — mechanism to make families pay his reckless tariffs.”

A White House official said that the bill was the result of months of negotiations between federal agencies, the White House and lawmakers and that it reflected bipartisan national security and foreign policy objectives.

Late changes to the Senate version of the bill were intended to restrict some of the potential impact on America’s trading partners. Only the top five importers of Russian oil or gas are eligible to be hit with U.S. tariffs. Countries that take significant steps to reduce their purchases of Russian oil and gas could have their tariff rates reduced or eliminated.

The Supreme Court invalidated Mr. Trump’s preferred legal tool in February, when it said his use of an international emergency law to impose tariffs was unlawful and ordered roughly $160 billion in tariff revenue to be refunded.

Earlier this month, the president moved to revive his protectionist agenda, imposing tariffs of around 10 percent on goods from more than 80 countries.

Those duties were issued under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs on foreign countries that engage in unreasonable or discriminatory trade practices. The administration has cited the failure of foreign countries to pass or enforce laws banning the importation of goods made by forced labor into their own countries, saying that disadvantages U.S. businesses that do follow such laws.

Mr. Trump also said this month that he planned to impose 100 percent tariffs on imported generic drugs starting in 2028.

The president has expressed a preference for using tariffs over sanctions as an economic weapon. Last year, Mr. Trump imposed tariffs on India as punishment for its purchases of Russian oil. However, the tariffs proved to be ineffective at curtailing India’s oil purchases and the Trump administration later rescinded them.

Ben Harris, a former Treasury Department official in the Biden administration who helped design its policy to cap the price of Russian oil, said that he was encouraged to see bipartisan legislation that could compel the Trump administration to punish more Russian shadow fleet tankers and tighten enforcement of existing sanctions.

But with energy prices remaining volatile because of the conflict in Iran and Mr. Trump continuing to express mixed messages about Russia, it is not clear how the president would wield new sanctions and tariff powers if he gets them.

“The Trump administration has a terrible record with respect to sanctioning Russia’s oil industry to date,” Mr. Harris said. “It’s been unclear what their objective has been from the get-go.”