❌

Normal view

Trump sidelines sweeping Russia sanctions as GOP allies warn pressure on Putin is slipping

23 October 2026 at 11:00

President Donald Trump is holding back on sweeping new economic penalties Congress handed him to squeeze Russia.

He is betting that keeping those sanctions in reserve will help bring Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table, a strategy drawing criticism from Republican allies amid questions about whether Moscow believes he will ever use them.

Over roughly a week, the administration waived most of the new Russia sanctions and tariffs enacted last month while separately easing restrictions on Russian diesel exports, moves one foreign policy expert described as Trump's most significant effort yet to unwind economic pressure on Moscow.

"It's probably the biggest effort that the Trump administration has made to start unwinding the U.S. sanctions architecture that's been in place against Russia since 2022 or even earlier in some cases," Hal Brands, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, told Fox News Digital.

TRUMP TRIES DIFFERENT APPROACH WITH RUSSIA TO BRING AMERICANS RELIEF AMID ONGOING WAR WITH UKRAINE

Trump argues that imposing the new penalties could drive Russia away from peace negotiations. But Brands said repeatedly holding back economic punishment risks convincing Putin that Washington is unwilling to follow through on its threats.

"The threat of imposition may lose some credibility if over a period of time you've demonstrated that you would prefer not to impose those penalties in the first place," Brands said.

REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS BREAK WITH TRUMP ON DIESEL DEAL WITH RUSSIA

The decision has drawn criticism from Republicans who helped advance the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, including Trump allies who worked with his White House to pass it.

Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., who played a leading role in passing the legislation and joined Trump in the Oval Office when he signed it last month, said Tuesday the administration should be turning up economic pressure on Moscow.

"It is my belief that we need to use economic firepower to help drive Putin to the table," Britt told Semafor. "I believe that Russia is at the darkest point that they've been at in this entire war, and now is the time for us to turn up the pressure."

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., said Congress had coordinated the legislation's timing with the White House, making Trump's decision to waive most of its new penalties particularly surprising.

"This was an act of Congress that we had worked with the White House on," Capito said. "We had timed this to when the president and the White House felt it was a good time to move forward with this, where it could be effective."

Other Republicans were more blunt in their criticism.

"Beyond irresponsible," Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., wrote on X. "What part of enforcing a law passed 86-11 by the Senate does the President and his advisors not understand?"

"It's unconscionable that this administration is capitulating to a Russian dictator who illegally invaded Ukraine and butchers innocent civilians every single day," he added.

Sen. Darline Graham, R-S.C., the lead sponsor of the legislation named for her late brother and a Trump-endorsed candidate, said she would "choose to keep the pressure on Russia" because "I don't trust Putin and I don't trust Russia."

The Graham Act, signed into law in September, provided for steep tariffs targeting Russia and major purchasers of Russian energy, along with sanctions on Russian financial institutions and foreign entities doing significant business with them.

Congress also included presidential waiver authority, which Trump invoked to put most of the law's new Russia penalties on hold.

Brands said including a waiver was not necessarily a mistake, even if it ultimately allowed Trump to avoid imposing the penalties lawmakers had sought.

"It's really tough to craft a sanctions or tariffs bill that forces the president to do something, and typically you don't want to do that because there are always circumstances one can imagine in which you might want to be able to waive sanctions," he said.

Trump has defended his decision as necessary to keep Putin at the negotiating table.

"My decision on Russia is a very simple one. I am in the process of negotiating Peace in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and don't want to do anything that will drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table," Trump wrote Sunday.

In his formal certification to Congress, Trump said imposing the Graham Act penalties now "would impede ongoing U.S. efforts to negotiate a durable and comprehensive peace." He left open the possibility of imposing them later to "incentivize resolution" of the war.

Brands acknowledged that holding sanctions in reserve can give a president bargaining power, but questioned whether Putin believes Trump is prepared to follow through.

"The challenge is that it's been clear for about 18 months now, since Lindsey Graham started pushing this bill in the first place in the early parts of 2025, that the president simply doesn't have much appetite for squeezing the Russian energy export system to the degree that people like the late Senator Graham envisioned and desired," Brands said.

The administration has separately eased existing restrictions to allow more Russian diesel onto the market, a move intended to relieve pressure on global fuel prices.

Trump has criticized Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries, arguing they are straining diesel markets. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has described sanctions relief as a "carrot" that could encourage Russia to de-escalate.

Brands said the immediate financial benefit to Moscow from diesel relief is probably "fairly marginal." The more consequential decision, he argued, was Trump's refusal to activate the broader sanctions and tariffs Congress authorized.

"There's a potential for pretty serious pressure to be exerted if he had used both the sanctions authorities and essentially the secondary tariff authorities to go after purchasers of Russian energy products overseas," Brands said.

Such measures could "put a fairly significant squeeze on the Russian war economy" while discouraging other countries from doing business with Moscow, he added.

Brands acknowledged that squeezing Russian energy exports could further strain global energy markets when Trump is focused on lowering fuel prices at home.

But he argued that the larger risk lies in what Putin concludes about Washington's willingness to sustain economic pressure.

"Putin's theory of victory in Ukraine for a long time has been that at some point the West, particularly the United States, will get tired of the costs of confrontation with Russia and support for Ukraine," Brands said.

The concern, he explained, is less about the immediate revenue Moscow gains from additional diesel exports than the possibility that easing restrictions reinforces Putin's belief that Washington is growing tired of confronting Russia.

"The risk you run here has less to do with the precise dollar or ruble amount that Russia will gain by being allowed to export some additional diesel than with the strategic signal you're sending that, in fact, the U.S. is getting tired of applying economic pressure against Russia and that the U.S.-Ukraine relationship is entering another period of conflict and divergence," Brands said.

Brands sees little prospect for a negotiated settlement in the immediate future and argued that changing Putin's calculation would require convincing him that the costs of continuing the war outweigh the potential gains.

"I think the only way you get there is by continuing to support Ukraine so it can take an increasing toll on Russia on the battlefield and by finding ways of ramping up rather than ramping down the economic pressure on Russia," Brands said.

Trump's waiver does not eliminate sanctions against Russia that predated the Graham Act, and the administration can revisit the new penalties.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The dispute now centers on whether keeping those penalties in reserve strengthens Trump's hand with Putin — or diminishes their value if Moscow doubts he is willing to use them.

Trump is trying ‘The Art of the Deal’ in Ukraine but what must Putin give up?

22 October 2026 at 14:00

Russian missiles keep falling on Ukrainian cities while Washington holds up approval of Patriot interceptor transfers to Ukraine, according to The Washington Post. A Ukrainian official told the Post that only "a couple" of interceptors remained. President Donald Trump wants this war to end, and that goal deserves support. But a deal that squeezes only Ukraine is not a peace plan, and right now Kyiv absorbs the pressure while Moscow collects the relief.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged on Oct. 20 that a batch bought for Kyiv may not have been delivered, but he rejected any political motive. "There's nothing being deliberately denied to Ukraine," he said.

So is Washington protecting scarce supplies, applying negotiating pressure or both? Americans deserve an answer, including what concessions Washington expects from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

TRUMP RUSSIA DEAL COULD FUEL PUTIN'S WAR, EX-NATO COMMANDER WARNS AS ZELENSKYY SAYS 'NYET'

The administration's strongest defense is scarcity, so start with the missiles. Lockheed Martin delivered 620 PAC-3 MSE interceptors in 2025 and plans to expand annual capacity to 2,000 over seven years.

The Iran war compounded the problem. A July assessment by the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that heavy combat use had pushed American Patriot inventories below 1,000.

UKRAINE'S ZELENSKYY OPEN TO FREEZING FRONT LINES IN CEASEFIRE WITH RUSSIA

A president must keep enough interceptors to protect American troops. Having worked on military strategy and security cooperation at the Pentagon, I take that obligation seriously. Ukraine's needs cannot erase our responsibilities elsewhere.

European money does not change that math. Kiel Institute data covering the first half of 2026 identify Europe as the largest military-aid donor, yet American stockpiles supplied more than 90% of the aid delivered through NATO's Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL). Europe is paying American industry to arm Ukraine, and Washington controls the tap.

AMERICA FACES A CRISIS IN OUR MILITARY ARSENAL THAT TRUMP IS RACING TO FIX

The lasting answer to scarcity is production. When U.S. Sens. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv Oct. 9, he pressed for faster Patriot production licensing and offered joint production of interceptors. Washington should pursue it, with technology safeguards.

Still, scarcity does not explain every pending decision, and Washington owes the allies who paid for these weapons a straight explanation. Nor does it explain the broader pressure on Kyiv.

TRUMP TELLS ZELENSKYY TO STOP DOING 'ONE THING' DURING ATTACKS ON RUSSIA

The clearest example involves the same pipeline. Reuters reports that Washington threatened to stop the allied-funded PURL weapons pipeline to press Kyiv to halt its deep strikes on Russian energy infrastructure. That is leverage over Ukrainian military operations, not proof of a coordinated campaign to remove Zelenskyy.

The satellite dispute is murkier. Blamed for throttling Ukraine's terminals, billionaire Elon Musk posted that limits "are decided by the U.S. military and ultimately" by the president. Reuters then traced the restriction to the White House through unnamed officials. Trump denied it. "It wasn't us," he told reporters Oct. 16. Separately, Ukraine went three days without American missile warnings before Zelenskyy said Oct. 18 that intelligence sharing had resumed.

ZELENSKYY ACCUSES PUTIN OF DEFYING TRUMP'S CEASEFIRE PUSH, SENDS POINTED MESSAGE TO WHITE HOUSE

The pressure is also personal. Trump called Oct. 10 for Ukraine to replace its president. Yet Zelenskyy sat down with American envoys in Oslo on Oct. 20. A leader who shows up for talks is not refusing diplomacy.

Now consider the other side of the ledger. Trump announced an energy ceasefire Oct. 11, although Russian agreement remained unclear. A week later, Russian strikes hit 28 substations and other energy facilities, according to the Institute for the Study of War, leaving roughly 550,000 Ukrainian households without power. Kyiv was pressed to stop hitting refineries while Moscow kept hitting the grid. Putin never confirmed the ceasefire, and his missiles show he never intended to honor it.

TRUMP TRIES DIFFERENT APPROACH WITH RUSSIA TO BRING AMERICANS RELIEF AMID ONGOING WAR WITH UKRAINE

Moscow, meanwhile, received relief. On Oct. 9, Treasury issued a license authorizing specified Russian diesel transactions. Reuters later reported that Washington hoped the diesel deal would soften Moscow's negotiating position.

The administration's case is domestic. Diesel hit a record $6.52 a gallon in September as the Iran war choked the Strait of Hormuz, and Trump promised relief for farmers, ranchers and truckers. But Lawfare's analysis found the agreed Russian exports would cover about 2% of American demand. The price relief is speculative. Moscow's gains are not: sanctions relief and American pressure on Kyiv to spare Russian refineries.

PENTAGON RACES TO BUY 10X MORE MISSILES AS IRAN WAR DWINDLES ARSENAL, THREATENS READINESS FOR CHINA AGGRESSION

Offering an adversary an incentive can be sound diplomacy. The question is what the incentive buys. So far, the bombing has not stopped.

Nor has softer treatment softened the Kremlin's terms. When Zelenskyy offered a 60-day ceasefire to permit elections, the Kremlin rejected it on Oct. 12, saying it wanted an overall settlement. Moscow refused the very pause that Trump's call for new Ukrainian leadership would require.

Putin's ambitions run larger still. The New York Post reports that he wants a summit with Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping to settle the war without Zelenskyy or Europe at the table, a redux of Yalta.

Putin bargains as if time is on his side. The battlefield says otherwise. Reuters reported Oct. 17 that Russian advances had slowed and many front lines remained largely static.

That gives Washington room to demand reciprocity. Wicker, the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, proposed one approach on Oct. 18: Ukrainian restraint against petroleum facilities in exchange for American targeting assistance against Russian missile launches. It deserves consideration. But Putin would still need to offer restraint of his own.

So what must Putin give up? As I argued in these pages last December, a durable agreement requires credible enforcement, and enforcement begins with concessions Moscow can be held to.

Russia must halt strikes on Ukraine's power grid and cities, the same restraint Washington demanded of Kyiv. It must accept monitored ceasefire terms, defined restrictions on military activity and consequences for violations. It must negotiate with Kyiv, not over Kyiv's head in China. And it must recognize that the size of Ukraine's army and the choice of its security partners belong to Kyiv, not the Kremlin.

For his part, Trump should preserve American reserves, expand production, insist on European performance and refuse any summit that decides Ukraine's fate without Ukraine. Diesel licenses and any further sanctions relief should depend on compliance, with automatic snap-back penalties if Moscow cheats.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

America need not send combat troops to Ukraine or finance an indefinite war to demand those safeguards.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Trump wants the killing to stop. Whether Putin will accept enforceable limits remains unproved. The test of American diplomacy is whether Moscow earns relief through compliance and faces greater costs for renewed aggression.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ROBERT MAGINNIS

❌