As the reviewer writes, this document could not only increase pressure on Moscow but also give the US president overly broad powers to impose large-scale tariffs on other countries.
Read more Weekend weather: heat in some places, elsewhere – rain with thunder and possible hail
“The bill contains many good provisions, but also two bad ones. It is far from clear which outweighs the other – the advantages or the disadvantages,” writes the author.
The provisions of the bill that M. Boot evaluates positively expand sanctions against Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russian political and military leaders, oligarchs, state-owned enterprises, financial institutions, energy projects, and companies supporting the Russian defense industry.
Additionally, the document provides sanctions against individuals and companies associated with the so-called “shadow fleet,” which helps Russia circumvent Western restrictions on energy resource exports.
At the same time, the author notes that US President Donald Trump already has broad powers to impose sanctions even without this bill, but so far he has used them quite sparingly. Moreover, the bill allows the head of state to delay the imposition of sanctions if he explains his decision to Congress.
The main problem of the document, according to the reviewer, is the provision regarding new tariffs. The bill gives the president the right to set tariffs of up to 100% for the five largest importers of Russian oil or natural gas, as well as a 500% tariff on Russian goods imported into the United States.
According to the author, these measures could potentially affect China, India, Turkey, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and other countries. Some US allies may be granted exceptions, but the decision on them will be made by the president’s administration.
M. Boot also warns that the law could become a legal basis for imposing tariffs not only on Russian energy resources but also for other reasons.
“The problem is that nothing would stop Trump from imposing tariffs on any of these countries for any other reason and using the Graham law as a legal basis,” he emphasizes.
The author points out that D. Trump has already imposed tariffs at his discretion several times, based on various legal grounds. That is why, in the reviewer’s opinion, Congress should not further expand the president’s powers.
M. Boot notes that many Senate Democrats hesitated whether to support the bill but ultimately agreed to vote for it to demonstrate support for Ukraine.
Therefore, the reviewer urges the House of Representatives, which will consider the bill in September, to improve it: remove the tariff provisions, make the application of sanctions mandatory, and include a provision for transferring US-controlled frozen Russian assets to Ukraine.
On July 28, the US Senate approved Lindsey Graham’s sanctions bill against Russia and Iran. At that time, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was in the Senate visitors’ gallery, applauded the senators, and called the decision symbolic because it was adopted on the day of L. Graham’s funeral – the senator died before his bill was passed.
Earlier, a group of Democrats in the US Congress opposed this bill because it effectively restores the president’s powers to set trade tariffs. Congress members Don Beyer and Brad Schneider stated that such tariffs could increase costs for Americans and provoke a global trade war.
At the same time, they emphasized their support for sanctions against Russia but considered this bill harmful to Ukraine because it reduces confidence in American aid at a critical time.
Read more NATO discusses the deployment of nuclear weapons in Lithuania, Finland, or Poland
