Numerous lawmakers, including some Republicans, are outraged about the Trump administration’s easing of sanctions on Russian oil exports, amid reports that Moscow is helping Iran target U.S. troops in the Middle East.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, looking to ease a supply crisis caused by the Iran war that has driven up energy prices, announced on March 6 a 30-day waiver of sanctions so that India can buy Russian oil. Russia’s proceeds from those sales to India are widely estimated at billions of dollars.
The sanctions on Russia’s two biggest oil companies, Lukoil and Rosneft, had been imposed in October after President Donald Trump had for months resisted calls from both parties in Congress to put them in place to diminish money available to Russia for attacking Ukraine and to goad Russia to make concessions in peace talks.
Despite eventually imposing the energy sanctions in October, Trump has stood in the way of Congress holding votes on a broader set of sanctions despite their wide support on Capitol Hill.
Critics say Trump has favored Russia and pressured only Ukraine in ongoing peace talks between the two nations.
In addition to the 30-day waiver, Trump and Bessent have said a broader relaxation of sanctions on Russian energy exports could be in the offing — a potential change that could have far larger and longer-term effects on Russia’s fiscal situation.
“We may unsanction other Russian oil” besides that headed to India under the 30-day waiver, Bessent told Fox Business’ “Kudlow” program on March 6.
Three days later, Trump told a House GOP conference in Miami: “We’re also waiving certain oil-related sanctions to reduce prices. So we have sanctions on some countries, we’re gonna take those sanctions off until this straightens out. Who knows, maybe we won’t have to put them on, there will be so much peace.”
GOP criticisms
Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, said in a brief interview Tuesday that he strongly disagrees with the decision to waive the sanctions.
“Russia is one of our significant threats, and they’re part of the axis of aggressors that we’re trying to build up our defenses against,” Wicker said. “I don’t think we should be doing anything to help them at all. We should be helping them lose.”
Likewise, Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., criticized the decision in a Tuesday post on X: “Reducing sanctions on Putin’s Russia when we just learned the Russians are giving targeting intelligence to Iran is clearly the WRONG strategy,” Bacon wrote. “The Russians are helping Iran to kill our service members. We want more sanctions on Russia, not less.”
Members of Congress from both parties worry that, with key sanctions put on hold, Russian President Vladimir Putin could use the proceeds from oil sales to bankroll Russia’s war on Ukraine, which just entered its fourth year, and conduct other actions hostile to the interests of America and its allies.
The relaxation of the oil sanctions comes at the same time reports have emerged of Russia helping Iran’s military with intelligence, not just in the same ways it has done for years but also, in recent days, allegedly providing detailed information on how to ensure Iranian drones are more likely to hit U.S. troops and assets in the ongoing war in the Middle East, CNN reported Wednesday.
Iranian weapons have killed seven U.S. troops and injured about 140, the Pentagon has said, and the duration of the conflict remains unclear.
Banking Committee pushback
Apart from Wicker and Bacon, however, several other Senate Republicans, when asked about the issue this week, declined to address it.
Democrats, by contrast, are pressing Trump hard over the matter.
Ten Democratic senators on the Banking Committee wrote that panel’s chairman, South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott, on Wednesday to urge him to convene a hearing with Bessent to discuss the license for India to buy Russian oil and the consideration of broader sanctions relief for Russia.
“By unlocking payment for an estimated 145 million barrels of Russian oil, the license allows billions of dollars to flow into Russia and to Russian intermediaries right as U.S. officials have confirmed that Russia is providing Iranian forces the locations of U.S. assets, including warships and aircraft,” the letter to Scott said.
It was signed by Democratic Sens. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Mark Warner of Virginia, Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Andy Kim of New Jersey and Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware.
Similarly, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., one of Congress’ most ardent supporters of Ukraine, said in a brief interview this week that he decries the decision to relax sanctions on Russia.
“I deeply regret that we are apparently reducing sanctions on Russian oil, because there are credible reports they’re aiding Iran in killing our servicemen and women,” he said. “We should be doing just the opposite of lessening sanctions. We should be intensifying sanctions.”
And Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., in a floor speech on Wednesday, called the waiving of Russia sanctions an “ill-conceived” attempt by Trump to lower gas prices in the United States, which have spiked amid war-induced turbulence in energy markets.
“His sanctions relief will fund Putin’s war in Ukraine while at the same time Russia reportedly shares intelligence with Iran on the placement of U.S. forces,” Durbin said.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, meanwhile, expressed concern Tuesday about any U.S. initiative that would enrich the country that has been bombarding his nation.
Zelenskyy said that “we know” Russian and U.S. officials are discussing broader sanctions relief for Moscow. He said doing that would be “a serious blow to us,” although he expressed optimism that the Trump administration wouldn’t go through with it.
“It’ll be a blow in terms of weapons, and globally a reputational blow, very powerful, very serious,” Zelenskyy said on Tuesday. “How can you lift sanctions on Russia when it’s the aggressor?”
