President Trump Supports Russia Sanctions Bill

On Thursday, the White House acknowledged Senator Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) assertions that President Trump has, in fact, approved a long-awaited sanctions bill targeting Russia, which has been lingering in Congress for several months. However, it’s important to note that discussions around this spending bill have yet to move forward in either the House or the Senate as they continue their debates.

A White House official confirmed to the Post that President Trump “supports this bill,” indicating his endorsement back in mid-November, though he hasn’t explicitly offered full backing.

Senator Graham shared on Wednesday that Trump had agreed to a bipartisan initiative designed to “punish countries buying inexpensive Russian oil that fuels President Putin’s war efforts.”

This legislation would empower the president to push nations like China, India, and Brazil to cease purchasing Russian oil that finances the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, Graham explained.

Frustration Mounting

Many Republicans, including Graham and Representative Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pennsylvania), are becoming increasingly concerned as Congress has not yet taken action. They have been advocating for economic sanctions since at least last April.

“I’m getting very frustrated,” Fitzpatrick remarked, referring specifically to Graham’s recent activities and mentioning his conversation with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), where he stated he would file an expulsion petition “immediately” if sanctions do not pass.

“When it comes to Russia, we need to use every tool at our disposal to impact their economy and bring them to the negotiation table, especially since they haven’t been acting in good faith with Ukraine,” Fitzpatrick noted. “This is about war and peace—it’s a serious existential issue.”

He continued, “I’m proud of this bill, and it’s encouraging that the president really wants it to move through Congress.”

In previous discussions, officials have expressed fear that approving the bill might hinder peace negotiations with Russia in the ongoing nearly four-year conflict in Ukraine.

However, hopes for Russia to comply with U.S. requests seem to be waning, as the Kremlin continues to dismiss proposals from U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner aimed at resolving the conflict after extensive talks with both Moscow and Kiev.

Kremlin’s Response

On Thursday, Russia’s Foreign Ministry criticized U.S. and European plans centered on Ukraine’s security, describing them as a “true axis of war.” They argued that the document is moving further away from any peace agreement, asserting it does not seek lasting peace or security but instead promotes ongoing militarization and conflict escalation.

On a related note, the U.S. military had seized a Russian-flagged oil tanker as part of efforts to manage Venezuelan oil exports, which has reportedly fueled sentiments in Ukraine that Trump is unafraid of applying pressure on Russia.

This seizure has also drawn ire from the Kremlin, labeled a “serious violation” of fundamental norms.

Interestingly, the U.S. will oversee all sales of Venezuelan oil, which may position it to counteract Russian market dominance, with analysts suggesting this shift could lead to decreased oil prices—something Trump has long advocated as leverage against Russia in the conflict.

Legislative Stalemate

The sanctions bill isn’t a new proposal but has faced delays, largely due to disagreements between Prime Minister Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) over which chamber should address it first. Time is of the essence, as both are pressed to finalize annual spending bills by January 30, when federal funding expires.

This has prompted some to consider alternative strategies, with some Democrats suggesting that an expulsion petition could compel a House vote.

A representative commented, “There seems to be a lot of motivation behind it, and the House is eager to kick things off.”

Fitzpatrick indicated he believes the petition has amassed the necessary 218 signatures for consideration and countered the argument that the president’s endorsement would obstruct peace efforts, saying, “It’s just another tool for achieving peace. And it shouldn’t halt negotiations.”

However, some congressional aides have pointed out that certain Democrats have reservations about the bill’s tariffs, despite the Senate version garnering over 80 co-sponsors.

Graham’s proposal would impose a staggering 500% tariff on countries importing energy from Russia, a major revenue source for their warfare.

“It’s one thing to show support for a measure designed to cast Trump as Putin’s ally; it’s another to actually implement it,” another source familiar with the ongoing discussions remarked.

This week, the Senate is also considering a war powers resolution, supported by Republicans, aimed at limiting future military actions by Venezuela’s government following the recent capture of dictator Nicolas Maduro.

Most legislative efforts in the Senate have focused on the challenges related to the transition from Socialist governance to new leadership.

Meanwhile, the House is reviewing bills this week aimed at extending Affordable Care Act subsidies and easing energy regulations.

Next Steps?

Due to these ongoing issues, neither Thune nor Johnson has settled on which chamber should spearhead the sanctions push.

“I suspect it will probably originate from the House,” Thune shared with reporters. “I know Senator Graham is consulting with the White House on the optimal timing for this.”

“We should know soon, as we continue to receive positive signals from the president and his team,” he added.

Thune had previously indicated that the House might lead on sanctions since “revenue measures are generated in the House.”

“If there’s something available in the Senate, we can address it there,” the Senate Republican leader affirmed.

On the same day, Prime Minister Johnson suggested that it would be more efficient and faster for the bill to move from the House of Lords to the House of Commons, expecting a wide margin vote.

Fitzpatrick echoed this sentiment, stating, “The revenue measure does need to originate in the House, that’s accurate. The Senate does move quicker, that’s true.”

“The main concern is whether the Senate has a straightforward path to expedite this,” he concluded. “But I believe it’s time to act.”