Members of both parties in Congress voiced objections Saturday to the president's move to lift recently imposed sanctions on Russia, with a cross-party push already forming to reverse the arrangement once legislators return from the election recess. Legislation that cleared Congress roughly a month ago may add a fresh layer of political pressure for the president to navigate.
On Friday evening, the White House released an executive order setting aside enforcement of the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act — legislation Trump had signed in September. Under that legislation, penalties would have extended beyond Russia to encompass nations purchasing its oil.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer joined fellow Democrats in opposing the decision, arguing that the arrangement provided an economic lifeline to Russia while drawing the United States into an increasingly compromised position. Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia posted on X that the waivers bore no relationship to national security interests, arguing instead that they reflected deference toward Vladimir Putin and ran counter to the congressional intent behind legislation crafted to hold Russia accountable for its military actions in Ukraine.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, posted on X that he hoped his Republican counterparts would join him in opposing what he characterised as a cowardly act. Republican members also voiced objections, with one arguing that economic pressure on Russia should be strengthened rather than reduced.
Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.) called for full enforcement of the Graham sanctions alongside his REPO Act as tools to pressure Russia into ending its military campaign in Ukraine, and separately indicated he had requested a classified briefing on the reasoning behind the decision. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) questioned why the president and his advisers appeared unwilling to carry out a law that had cleared the Senate by a vote of 86 to 11.
Three lawmakers voiced their objections through separate posts on X, with one calling the administration's stance toward Russia a betrayal of principle. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) wrote that the late Sen. Lindsey Graham would have taken strong exception, while Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) noted that the upcoming lame-duck session in Congress could present the administration with a difficult path forward.
The president's legislative priorities — including supplemental funding, reconciliation measures, and other items — face considerable uncertainty about their prospects for advancement. In a written statement, Bacon indicated that a number of colleagues were unwilling to allocate funding toward those measures, given the belief that the administration was providing support to an authoritarian military operation while abandoning a partner nation.
The administration put forward a defence of the decision, with spokesperson Taylor Rogers stating in a written statement that ending the ongoing conflict had been a stated priority for the president. Rogers noted that the legislation grants the president expanded authority to pursue a negotiated resolution, and that activating its sanctions provisions at that stage would interfere with active diplomatic efforts aimed at reaching a lasting peace arrangement between Ukraine and Russia. Rogers added that those powers remain available for the president to invoke whenever a determination is made that doing so would serve the country's broader interests.
