President Trump is reportedly open to signing a bill imposing new sanctions on Russia, a move long advocated by Republican hawks. However, this apparent shift comes with a significant condition: he wants the legislation revised to grant him even greater control over its implementation.
A senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that there is “conceptually an openness” to the bill, spearheaded by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). But the official stressed the need to preserve what the White House views as the president’s exclusive authority in matters of U.S. foreign policy. This desire for control hinges on the waiver authority embedded within the sanctions regime.
Currently, the bill allows the president to waive a hefty 500% tariff on countries purchasing Russian oil and uranium, initially for up to 180 days. Graham has signaled a willingness to revise the bill to permit a second waiver, albeit subject to congressional oversight. The administration, however, seeks to solidify the president’s waiver authority, effectively precluding Congress from questioning his decisions should he opt to lift the sanctions. This point of contention is proving to be a majoy stumbling block.
“The current version would subject the president’s foreign policy decisions to micromanagement by Congress through a joint resolution of disapproval process… That’s a nonstarter for us,” the administration official stated. “The administration is not going to be micromanaged by the Congress on the president’s foreign policy. The bill needs a waiver authority that is complete.”
Trump’s newfound willingness to engage with Congress on sanctions is partly fueled by growing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who he believes has repeatedly rebuffed attempts to negotiate an end to the conflict in Ukraine. This frustration, however, is intertwined with Trump’s broader vision of presidential power.
“For the president now, he has invested his own reputation of being able to negotiate anything anywhere, and Putin has made him look foolish,” said one Republican operative close to the White House.
Trump recently expressed his discontent, stating that Putin was throwing “a lot of bullshit” at him and that he was “looking very strongly” at the sanctions bill. Speaker Mike Johnson has also voiced support for the sanctions push, declaring, “Vladimir Putin has shown an unwillingness to be reasonable and to talk seriously about brokering a peace, and I think we have to send him a message.”
Despite the show of support, Senate Majority Leader John Thune adopted a more cautious tone, acknowledging “substantial progress” in discussions with the White House but emphasizing the need for Trump’s full endorsement. He indicated that the measure could potentially reach the Senate floor this month but stopped short of guaranteeing its passage. The sticking point, as several sources confirm, remains the scope of the waiver authority.
Trump’s insistence on maintaining maximum flexibility and control over U.S. policy toward the Kremlin reflects a desire to keep open the possibility of a breakthrough with Putin, according to White House officials. This cautious approach is understandable in the current volatile geopolitical climate.
This shift in approach represents a catalyst for change in U.S.-Russia relations, moving from initial attempts at rapprochement towards a potentially more confrontational stance, albeit one carefully managed by the president himself. It also underscores the complex dynamic between the executive and legislative branches in shaping foreign policy.
Despite bipartisan support for the sanctions bill within the Senate, many Republicans are hesitant to proceed without a clear and unequivocal expression of support from Trump. The memory of past foreign policy initiatives undermined by presidential disinterest looms large.
Here are some key aspects of the developing situation:
- Trump wants total control over waiving sanctions.
- Republicans fear passing a bill the president might veto.
- The “America First” faction seeks direct confirmation from Trump.
- Putin’s perceived intransigence is fueling Trump’s frustration.
One GOP Hill official, speaking anonymously, noted, “The desire to move up here is real, but the risk is moving a bill that the president ultimately decides he doesn’t want.” Some GOP lawmakers are privately questioning the unity Graham claims exists, especially given the president’s history of unpredictable pronouncements. They want to hear it from Trump himself.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) stated, “I know Lindsey has said now he’s in favor of it … [but] I just want to get clued into what his thinking on it. I just prefer to hear it from him.”
Another Republican senator, also requesting anonymity to speak candidly, echoed this sentiment: “If the president’s in favor of sanctions, then I’m in favor of sanctions, but I defer to the president. He’s the one in the middle of all the negotiations. He’s frustrated with Putin today. He’s been frustrated with [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy before. And he’s the only leader in the world that can bring both sides together.”
The desire for clear presidential leadership extends beyond Capitol Hill. Maria Petrova, a small business owner in a heavily Russian-American community, expressed concern about the potential impact on local businesses. “It happened when no one was watching,” she said, “and suddenly everyone is affected.” Her words highlight the potential for far-reaching consequences from these high-level political maneuvers.
This saga is a testament to the lasting impact presidential authority can have on international relations and domestic politics. Whether Trump’s conditions are met and the sanctions bill ultimately passes remains to be seen. However, the episode underscores the enduring tension between Congress and the White House over control of U.S. foreign policy, particularly when it comes to dealing with complex geopolitical challenges like Russia.
The political landscape is further complicated by the upcoming elections, with both sides acutely aware of the potential ramifications of their actions. A misstep could have significant repercussions, shaping the narrative surrounding U.S. foreign policy for years to come. The stakes, therefore, are exceptionally high.
Meanwhile, comments online reflect a polarized electorate. Some X.com users applaud Trump’s assertiveness, while others criticize his approach as erratic and unpredictable. Facebook and Instagram posts reveal a similar divide, underscoring the deep-seated partisan divisions that permeate American society. The situation continues to develop, with further announcements expected in the coming weeks. It’s clear that the road ahead will be complex and fraught with challenges.
