WASHINGTON — The White House on Thursday confirmed Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) claim that President Trump has “greenlit” a long-sought Russian sanctions bill that has languished in Congress for months — but is not being taken up while the House and Senate deliberate on spending and other bills.
A White House official told The Post that Trump “supports this legislation,” for which he’d previously signaled support as far back as mid-November, though stopped short of full-throated endorsement.
Graham announced Wednesday that Trump OK’d his bipartisan legislation and would “punish those countries who buy cheap Russian oil fueling Putin’s war machine.”
The legislation would also give the president “tremendous leverage against countries like China, India and Brazil to incentivize them to stop buying the cheap Russian oil that provides the financing for Putin’s bloodbath against Ukraine,” the South Carolina Republican said.
‘I’m growing very frustrated’
Congress has yet to act, vexing some Republicans like Graham and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) who have been pushing for the bill forcing the economic penalties since at least April of last year.
“I’m growing very frustrated. I can tell you that. I mean, we have multiple vehicles,” Fitzpatrick told The Post, noting Graham’s measure and that he’d also informed House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) he will “imminently” file a discharge petition if the sanctions don’t receive a vote in some form.
“When it comes to Russia, I think we need to do everything possible to strangle their economy to force them to actually come to the negotiating table, which they’ve not been willing to do honestly with Ukraine,” Fitzpatrick said. “This is a matter of war and peace. This is existential and critical.”
“I’m proud of this bill and that the president actually really does want this to pass Congress,” he added.
In the past, officials have raised concerns that the bill could hamper peace talks with Russia to wind down its nearly four-year war with Ukraine.
But with the Kremlin continuing to resist US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner’s proposal for an end to the war after painstaking rounds of talks with Moscow and Kyiv, hope is running low on Russia bending to America’s will without further action.
Irked Kremlin
Moscow’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Thursday slammed a key part of the proposal — the US-European plan for security assurances for Ukraine, saying the protection plan amounts to “a true axis of war.”
“The document turned out to be extremely far from a peace settlement. The declaration is not aimed at achieving a lasting peace and security but rather at continuing the militarization, escalation and further conflict aggravation,” the ministry claimed, pointing to measures that would “deter” Russia from re-invading Ukraine in the event of a cease-fire.
On Wednesday, US forces seized a Russian-flagged oil tanker as part of a quarantine of Venezuelan oil exports — something Ukrainian sources have said proves Trump is not afraid of squeezing Russia.
That also irked the Kremlin’s foreign ministry, which slammed the act as “a gross violation of fundamental principles and norms” in a separate statement on Thursday.
There’s also an “America First” benefit: the US is also set to oversee all Venezuelan crude oil sales, giving the US an interest in challenging Russia’s hold on that market.
Economic analysts predict that the US’s new role in selling Venezuelan oil — and thus, lifting sanctions — will tank the price per barrel of crude, something Trump has long pushed as a way to force Moscow to end its war.
A new path forward?
The bill is anything but new. In the months it has languished, Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) have been unable to agree on which of their chambers should take it up.
Both have packed schedules to complete annual appropriations bills before the federal government’s funding runs out on Jan. 30.
That’s prompted some to consider alternatives to force the issue, including one Democratic lawmaker who told The Post Thursday that a discharge petition may be needed to bring it up for a vote in the House.
“I think there’s a lot of energy behind that — I think the House is willing to initiate it,” the rep said.
Fitzpatrick emphasized he believes the petition would get the 218 signatures required for consideration — and disputed that it would hamper peace talks if signed by the president.
“It gives him [Trump] another arrow in his quiver when it comes to bringing peace,” the Pennsylvania Republican said. “And it’s not gonna interrupt peace talks.”
Despite the Senate bill having more than 80 co-sponsors, at least one congressional aide also indicated that some Democrats are against the tariffs in the legislation.
Graham’s bill would force a 500% tariff on nations that import energy from Russia, the proceeds of which are a significant source of funding for Moscow’s war machine.
“It’s one thing to support the bill when they can use it to make Trump look like a Putin stooge, but it’s another to actually do it,” said another source familiar with the debate among Democrats.
“One of my biggest longstanding frustrations with Dems when it comes to Russia — all talk, little action,” the source added.
The Senate this week had deliberated on a war powers resolution that passed with GOP support to rein in future military actions by the president’s administration in Venezuela following the successful capture of dictator Nicolás Maduro.
Much of the legislative energy in the upper chamber has been channeled at the mounting challenges in overseeing the transition from the socialist leader to his second-in-command.
The House has been dealing with bills this week to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies as well as deregulate domestic energy policy.
Your House or mine?
As a result, neither Thune nor Johnson has been able to decide which chamber should take up the sanctions.
“I think it probably originates in the House,” Thune told reporters Thursday. “I know Senator Graham’s been working and having discussions with the White House about when’s the right time to do it.”
“And at least based on the indications he’s got from the president and his team, it seems like maybe that’s now, but we’ll know for certain here pretty soon,” he added. “My assumption is it’ll originate over there.”
Days after Trump first expressed support for the sanctions in November, Thune similarly indicated the House would be the one to consider it because “revenue measures originate in the House.”
“If we had one available to us in the Senate, we could do it here,” the Senate Republican leader said.
Johnson that same day claimed, “It is simpler and quicker to get it done if it comes from the Senate to the House with a large vote margin, which we expect.”
“A revenue measure does need to emanate in the House. That is true,” Fitzpatrick added. “It is a lot quicker in the Senate. That’s also true.”
“The question is, does the Senate have a blue-slip or fast-track method to, you know, expedite this,” he said. “But I think it’s gotta move.”
