RESOLVING THE LEDGER
This is one outlet's own report from Axios — the article as it was filed. Other outlets are covering the same event; open the full story to compare every source side by side.
See the full story · 1 sources
A legal cat-and-mouse game has played out over whether the president can use various obscure, untested provisions to impose tariffs. Now, Congress appears on track to give him a big, new — and explicit — tariff authority.
Why it matters: A bill on Russia sanctions, named for the late Sen. Lindsey Graham , has received overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate and would allow President Trump and future presidents to impose tariffs of up to 100% on major importers of Russian energy.
If enacted in its current form, it would give the president greater flexibility to raise import taxes on major economies including India, China and the European Union, without the legal limits and ambiguity of the tools he has used thus far.
Catch up quick: The Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026 passed a key procedural hurdle in the Senate last week by an 86-12 vote.
It strengthens sanctions on Russia and Iran and targets Russia's "shadow fleet" of oil tankers used to avoid Russian sanctions, and imposes a 500% tariff on U.S. imports from Russia.
The bill states that the U.S. trade representative can adjust tariff rates to anywhere between 0% and 100% on the five largest importers of Russian crude oil or natural gas by volume.
The trade representative must merely notify Congress about its actions; there are no further constraints or requirements needed for the administration to justify whatever tariff rate it chooses.
State of play: It comes as Trump's broader tariff agenda has faced challenges and setbacks in the courts.
The Supreme Court ruled against Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs, and the Treasury has refunded $100 billion to importers who paid them.
The administration then turned to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, allowing temporary tariffs to address balance-of-payments deficits. That provision limits the scale and duration of tariffs, and a lower court struck down its use anyway.
The intrigue: The administration most recently turned to Section 301 of the Trade Act, allowing tariffs as retaliation for unfair practices by trading partners.
That is a tried-and-true provision that has been used across many presidential administrations, but the specific grounds for its invocation in this case is more dubious, asserting that retaliation is needed for forced labor practices in some of the wealthiest countries on earth.
Businesses that face the import taxes are challenging those in court , as well.
Between the lines: If enacted in its current form, the Russia sanctions legislation would grant the president a more legally bulletproof tool to impose much higher tariffs, at least on a handful of major economies.
There's nothing in the bill's text that compels Trump or future presidents to tie the use of the tariffs to some specific geostrategic goal involving Russia's war with Ukraine.
What they're saying: "The sentiment is obviously right," Jonathan Finer, former principal deputy national security adviser, tells Axios. "The war won't end until [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is pressured enough to stop. But the details matter."
"The bill includes no sanctions authorities the president doesn't already have, lets him off the hook with a waiver to avoid using them, and gives him enormous authorities to tariff U.S. partners and allies up to 100%, largely at his discretion," Finer said.
AIPROPX is an independent multi-source news index — we track, compare, and connect coverage from across the web into one place you won't find anywhere else.