Washington — Tension is mounting in the political corridors of the US: the White House is showing restraint towards Congress’s aggressive sanctions initiative aimed at undermining Russia’s oil and gas revenues. A bill imposing sanctions of up to 500% on countries that continue to cooperate with Moscow in the energy sector has encountered an unexpected obstacle — the cautious stance of President Donald Trump.
The document, drafted by Senator Lindsey Graham and Republican Majority Leader John Thune, was introduced in early June. Its essence is to cut off Russia’s access to one of its key sources of foreign exchange earnings. According to the International Energy Agency, almost 40% of Russia’s federal budget in 2024 was generated by oil and gas exports. The authors believed that sanctions in this area would force the Kremlin to make concessions, particularly in the context of the conflict in Ukraine.
However, there is no consensus within the presidential administration itself on the timing and advisability of such a radical step. Sources close to the White House report that Donald Trump is in no hurry to support tough measures. He refuses to comment on the details of the bill and calls the initiative “untimely” and “unnecessarily harsh.” At a press briefing on June 5, he described the situation between Russia and Ukraine as “protracted but overly dramatized,” emphasizing the need to find “real levers of influence, not imitation pressure.”
Congress’ reaction to the White House’s restraint is mixed. Some lawmakers are expressing concern: they had hoped for decisive action in response to Moscow’s continuing military and political pressure. In their view, Washington’s evasiveness could be seen as weakness not only in the Kremlin, but also in other world capitals, where pragmatism often outweighs solidarity.
However, the White House has its own calculations. The Trump administration is betting on the possibility of direct negotiations with Moscow, hoping for a “flexible window of opportunity” that could be lost in the event of a sharp deterioration in relations. In addition, there is ongoing debate within the US political establishment about the balance between strategic influence and economic interests: countries such as India and Turkey are key partners for Washington in other areas, and harsh punishment for their energy cooperation with Russia could cause geopolitical instability that America is not yet ready for.
Experts note that ahead of the 2024 elections, Trump is crafting a foreign policy rhetoric dominated by caution, prioritization of “American interests,” and skepticism about multilateral pressure. This position may not coincide with the line taken by Congress, but, according to the White House, it reflects the mood of a significant part of American society, which is tired of conflicts overseas and wants to focus on domestic issues.
Against the backdrop of this conflict of interests, the question remains open: will the draft law fall victim to interdepartmental games, or will it be reformatted into a more “flexible” instrument of pressure? In the coming weeks, attention to this issue will undoubtedly increase — both within the corridors of power and outside the US, where millions may feel the consequences of Washington’s decision.
