Trump faces bipartisan backlash over waiving Russia sanctions

President Donald Trump faced immediate bipartisan condemnation from lawmakers after issuing an executive order to waive new sanctions on Russia. The decision arrived two days before the penalties were scheduled to take effect. The measure had been championed by the late Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican who died before the legislation passed. Trump signed the bill into law on September 18. The waiver undermines the legacy of Graham, who viewed the law as one of his final major political achievements. The president expressed growing frustration with Ukraine during remarks on the White House South Lawn on Monday. He stated that Russia had been behaving well regarding Ukraine and claimed the United States had provided substantial aid while receiving nothing in return. These comments occurred despite recent Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, a medical clinic, a school, a metro station, and residential buildings, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The economic restrictions aimed to punish senior Russian officials and major purchasers of Russian oil and gas. The goal was to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the four-year conflict in Ukraine. However, the statute grants the president authority to suspend specific provisions if he certifies to Congress that doing so serves the national interest. Trump invoked this clause in an executive order released on Friday. The document cited national interest but offered no further explanation for the reversal. This action followed a week in which the administration eased sanctions on Russia’s energy sector and announced a deal to import diesel into the U.S. market. The government faces mounting pressure to lower fuel prices ahead of upcoming midterm elections. The agreement involves purchasing 300,000 tons of diesel, equivalent to approximately 2.2 million barrels. This volume represents slightly more than half of the 4.1 million barrels of diesel consumed daily in the United States. Analysts noted that because Ukraine has damaged much of Russia’s refining capacity, delivery timelines remain uncertain. They argued the deal would not compensate for supply disruptions caused by the war in Iran. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a Republican, labeled the move beyond irresponsible. He described the administration’s stance as unconscionable capitulation to a dictator who invades Ukraine and kills civilians. Tillis suggested that addressing issues in Iran would be a better method for reducing energy costs than assisting Putin. Senator John Cornyn of Texas agreed, stating that helping Putin in Ukraine is reckless. He warned that Putin would not stop there and would target NATO allies next. Cornyn recalled that Putin calls the collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota echoed these sentiments on television, arguing that yielding to a bully invites further demands. He criticized the administration’s approach as treating a thug like a business partner. Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, a Republican, wrote that the president is prolonging the war rather than ending it. Jon Stewart, commenting on the policy shift, called the waiver insane and incoherent. While outrage spread through both parties in Congress, observers indicated that no immediate legislative countermeasure was visible.