A Russia Sanctions Bill Would Give Trump Vast New Tariff Powers
· Reason
This week, the House passed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, named for the late senator. The Senate passed its own version of the bill in August, and it now heads to President Donald Trump's desk to be signed into law.
In a fitting tribute to Graham, the bill would expand the powers of the presidency at the expense of the legislature.
Visit sportbet.rodeo for more information.
The bill imposes sanctions on Russia and Iran, a longtime priority of Graham's. It also directs the president to impose tariffs "of up to 100 percent" on all goods from any countries that, in the previous year, were "among the 5 largest importers, by total volume, of crude oil or natural gas that originated in the Russian Federation" or "among the top 5 countries facilitating Russian oil sanctions evasion."
Through the end of August, China, India, and Turkey were the largest recipients of Russian crude oil, while the European Union received the most pipeline gas and liquefied natural gas. (The bill exempts any country that imported "less than 15 percent" of Russia's total natural gas exports and "has taken significant steps to reduce its imports of natural gas that originated in the Russian Federation.")
"This makes little sense," Reason's Eric Boehm wrote after the bill passed the Senate. "Tariffs are tax increases paid by Americans. The goal is to punish Russian President Vladimir Putin for his war of aggression in Ukraine, but this tariff policy would allow the president to tax Americans who buy goods made in India or Belgium. Yes, the intention is to steer those countries away from using Russian fossil fuels, but surely there are ways to do that without hiking taxes on Americans in the process."
The proposal is worded broadly enough that Trump could use it in a number of other ways. Catherine Rampell of The Bulwark called it "potentially the nuclear bomb of tariff power."
Trump is a big fan of tariffs. At the beginning of his second term, he imposed tariffs on dozens of countries.
The Constitution places this power with Congress, not the president. To justify his effort, Trump cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a decadesold statute that gives the president certain authorities during national emergencies but never once uses the word tariff. The Supreme Court overruled those tariffs in February, saying IEEPA did not afford him that authority, and even if it did, Congress could not sign that power away so broadly.
"When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms, and subject to strict limits," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "Where Congress has reason to be worried about its powers 'slipping through its fingers,' we in turn have every reason to expect Congress to use clear language to effectuate unbounded delegations—particularly of its 'one great power,'" the power to tax. (Trump has since imposed tariffs citing other laws, but those are likely also illegal.)
This new law is an attempt to give more of Congress' authorities to the president. While it may pass constitutional scrutiny better than Trump's other tariff attempts, it's just as bad an idea.
"The bill does not specify where the data identifying the 'top five' purchasers come from," wrote Cato Institute research fellow Clark Packard. "Russian energy flows are deliberately murky—intermediaries, transshipment, blended cargoes—and different datasets yield different lists. A statute that turns on a factual finding but declines to specify who makes it or what data are used is not a statute with guardrails. This is an invitation to pick the answer the president wants and dare someone to sue."
By that same logic, determining which five countries were the worst offenders "facilitating…sanctions evasion" could be subject to an even greater degree of individual interpretation. It seems that the bill could apply to as many as five importers and five evaders, letting Trump impose 100 percent tariffs on 10 different countries.
"Count me deeply opposed to the tariff provisions of the new Russia sanctions bill," added Peter Harrell of Georgetown University's Institute of International Economic Law. "The reality is that Trump would use the tariff tool not to target Russia, but as a legal basis for his ongoing trade wars over economic, geopolitical, and personal tiffs."
"On balance, this new proposal is a bad law. There are vastly better ways to help Ukraine resist Russia than these kinds of indirect sanctions," George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin tells Reason. "And there is little if any reason to think Trump would use the discretionary authority in the proposed law to actually help Ukraine, as opposed [to] as a pretext for protectionism."
"These provisions give the Administration significant leeway to determine which countries might be subject to tariffs along with the rate they would face. It's possible the act could even be used to threaten new tariffs on countries in Europe or elsewhere that are working to deter Russian aggression," adds Bryan Riley of the National Taxpayers Union. "Congress needs to reclaim its constitutional authority over tariffs, not give even more of its authority away."
The post A Russia Sanctions Bill Would Give Trump Vast New Tariff Powers appeared first on Reason Magazine.