While praised as a necessary step, a new legislative maneuver to punish Russia draws criticism from analysts who see it as potentially more for political messaging than for real change.

by  Alex Raufoglu | Sept. 14, 2025

President Donald Trump hosts a dinner for Republican lawmakers, including Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on July 18, 2025, in the State Dining Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

WASHINGTON DC – A pair of leading US lawmakers from the Republican party are attempting a high-risk, high-reward legislative maneuver to impose sweeping new sanctions on Russia.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) announced Saturday they will push to attach a sanctions bill to a must-pass government funding measure, a move that could force a showdown over the US strategy toward the war in Ukraine.

The proposed legislation, known as the “Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025,” is not a new concept. It has been stalled in Congress for months, in part due to what lawmakers have perceived as a reluctance from US President Donald Trump to embrace broad-based sanctions against Moscow.

But by tying the bill to a continuing resolution, or CR, the lawmakers are leveraging the threat of a government shutdown to force a vote on a bill that could otherwise languish.

Direct challenge to the Kremlin’s finances

The bill’s provisions are designed to cut off the Kremlin’s financial lifelines. It would not only sanction Russia directly but would also impose secondary sanctions on countries that continue to buy Russian oil, a clear message to major purchasers like India and China.

While the Trump administration has already imposed tariff on goods and services imported from countries that buy Russian oil, this bill would formalize and broaden that pressure.

It seeks to close a key loophole in the international sanctions regime, which has allowed Russia to continue generating revenue for its war effort by selling deeply discounted oil to partners in Asia.

The Graham-Fitzpatrick plan reflects a growing frustration within Congress over the pace and scope of the US response to the conflict in Ukraine.

For months, proponents of tougher measures have argued that a fragmented approach, which has included tariffs but not comprehensive sanctions, has failed to decisively change Putin’s calculus.

By pairing their sanctions bill with the sale of advanced American weapons to Ukraine, the lawmakers are advocating for a strategy that combines economic punishment with direct military support.

“Good effort,” but more is needed, analyst says

The effort, however, has drawn a mix of praise and criticism from foreign policy analysts. Doug Klain from Razom, a US-based organization that advocates for Ukrainian interests, told Kyiv Post on Saturday that the move is a necessary but likely insufficient step.

“I think after President Trump’s announcement, it’s clear that there will be no sanctions on Russia unless Congress acts,” Klain said.

He praised the initiative, calling it “a good effort from Republican congressmen to get this legislation through somehow,” while also noting that “leadership could bring it to a vote immediately if they wanted to.”

Klain also noted that while the bill has positive aspects, some of its provisions may be more for political messaging than for practical impact. He specifically pointed to the 500 percent tariffs, which he views as “unlikely to be implemented.”

“There’s plenty of serious sanctions proposals out there, and I would hope Congress incorporates them into anything it advances,” he added, underscoring a broader belief that a more robust and comprehensive approach is required to be truly effective.

Political risks and the path forward

This legislative maneuver is not without significant political risks. A government funding bill is often a target for controversial policy riders, and the addition of the sanctions measure could complicate negotiations and increase the risk of a shutdown.

Furthermore, the bill would put President Trump in a difficult position. While he has recently expressed a willingness to consider new sanctions, this bill would force his hand on a far more aggressive and comprehensive sanctions regime than his administration has so far pursued.

The move also exposes a persistent tension in the US approach to its allies. The secondary sanctions on countries like India and China are a bold step, one that could strain diplomatic relationships and create new economic ripple effects.

The European Union, for example, has been reluctant to take similar steps due to its own energy dependencies and trade relationships.

By pushing forward with a unilateral and aggressive sanctions policy, Graham and Fitzpatrick are betting that the strategic imperative of weakening Russia outweighs the potential diplomatic costs.