Legislative Progress in the US Senate
A comprehensive package of sanctions targeting Russia has successfully advanced through its initial stage in the United States Congress. This proposed legislation, if it becomes law, has the potential to introduce considerable tariffs on nations such as India and China, which maintain their acquisition of oil from Moscow. The bill, named in honor of the late Senator Lindsey Graham, recently passed in the US Senate and is now awaiting further consideration.
Senate Action and Endorsement
The “Lindsey O Graham Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026” received overwhelming support in the Senate, with a vote of 86 to 12. This decisive vote allows the bill to proceed to the House of Representatives for additional discussion and voting. Senator Graham, a staunch advocate for Ukraine, passed away unexpectedly this month. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was present in Washington for Graham's funeral and observed the Senate proceedings. Following the vote, President Zelenskyy remarked on social media, “It was an honour to be present as the votes were counted – 86 senators supported the bill. This is the first step towards implementing Lindsey [Graham]’s plans, and certainly a step towards peace. It is important that this tool works.”
While the bill has cleared the Senate, its progression to the House will be delayed as the House is currently in its summer recess. Furthermore, US President Donald Trump recently directed lawmakers to incorporate tariffs on Iran into the bill. This amendment could potentially prolong the legislative process, particularly if it reduces support from Democratic representatives, according to analytical assessments.
David Smith, an associate professor at the University of Sydney’s US Studies Centre, commented on the potential impact of the Iran addition: “One of the things they’re worried about is how the tariff power in relation to Iran is going to be expanded. They’re going to be ok with tariff powers on Russia but they’re worried about tariff power on countries buying Iranian oil, which means China. I think there are going to be a lot of Democrats that are going to say these powers should be limited to sanctions and not tariffs.” Smith suggested that without the inclusion of Iran, the bill would likely pass the House upon its return, given the strong bipartisan support for Ukraine. He noted that Democrats are genuinely concerned about the Trump administration’s stance on Ukraine, and a measure that intensifies pressure on Russia would likely garner significant Democratic votes.
Key Provisions of the Bill
The proposed legislation is designed to employ sanctions and tariffs to target Russia, aiming to disrupt the financial resources sustaining the conflict in Ukraine. Notable elements of the bill include new sanctions against Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as over 20 senior officials and entities involved in the Russian defense sector. It also targets Russia’s “shadow fleet” of oil tankers and the intricate network used to circumvent international sanctions on its energy exports.
Crucially, the bill grants the President authority to impose sanctions by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Under this authority, the President could apply tariffs of up to 100 percent on exports to the US from the top five purchasers of Russian energy, military equipment, or countries facilitating Russian sanctions evasion. Additionally, tariffs as high as 500 percent could be levied directly on Russian imports into the US. In 2025, the US imported goods valued at $3.8 billion from Russia.
Potential Targets and Geopolitical Implications
Countries such as China, India, and Türkiye are identified as potential targets of this bill, as they are among the largest buyers of Russian energy, according to data compiled by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA). Historically, China has responded to US tariffs with retaliatory tariffs on American exports. Even Pay, a director at the Beijing-based consultancy Trivium China, indicated that the US might defer imposing tariffs given an upcoming meeting between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping later this year. However, Pay noted that Trump would likely appreciate the option to impose such tariffs, especially after the Supreme Court invalidated many of his previous tariffs in February. She stated, “If passed and signed into law [which is still a big if at this point], the legislation would give Trump something he’s wanted for a while, namely, the legislature’s permission to impose high tariffs on China, alongside the small handful of other countries that import Russian oil.”
India faces a complex situation, as its efforts to diversify energy sources away from Russia were disrupted by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Maia Nikoladze, a deputy director of the Economic Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, highlighted that India has previously sought and received US sanction waivers to continue purchasing Russian oil due to these disruptions, and is expected to do so again. Nikoladze wrote in a recent report, “India will face a trade-off between maintaining energy security and managing the risk of US tariffs, potentially prompting it to again seek waivers and exemptions.”
Critiques and Concerns
Critics of the bill, including Senator Maggie Hassan, express concerns that it grants the President excessive power to impose tariffs, potentially harming both American taxpayers and allied nations. For instance, Türkiye, while a buyer of Russian energy, is also a US ally and NATO member. Similarly, Brazil, a “major non-NATO ally,” and Singapore, a “major security cooperation partner,” both purchase Russian oil products, according to CREA data.
Senator Hassan articulated her reservations on social media, stating that while she supports sanctioning Russia, she does “not think tariffs, which are paid for by American businesses and consumers, will help Ukraine win.” Lobbying groups, such as the US Chamber of Commerce, also oppose the bill, contending that the ultimate cost will be borne by US businesses and consumers, mirroring the effects of past tariffs. While many of Trump’s earlier tariffs were overturned by the Supreme Court, Smith suggests that these new Russia tariffs could have greater legal durability. This is because the proposed legislation is new and specifically crafted using the powers of the IEEPA. Smith explained, “Previously what Trump has done is to go back to old pieces of legislation and invoke from those his power to use tariffs in ways they haven’t been used before and in ways courts have subsequently found less lawful, whereas this looks like new legislation that is going to lawfully expand his tariff authority.”
