Congress is on the verge of handing President Donald Trump a powerful new tool for his trade war, one that could bypass the legal hurdles that have blocked his earlier tariff efforts. The Senate voted 86 to 11 on Friday to pass the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026, a bill that would authorize the president to impose tariffs as high as 100% on the five largest importers of Russian oil and natural gas. The House is expected to approve the legislation with similar bipartisan support next month.

The bill's primary aim is to punish Russia for its ongoing war in Ukraine. It sanctions President Vladimir Putin, top Kremlin officials, and targets the country's energy sector. Yet the tariff authority embedded in the measure has drawn intense scrutiny. The president would have the power to decide which countries face the steepest duties, and he could issue waivers if he determines it is "in the national interest of the United States." This could include major allies such as the European Union, South Korea, and Japan, as well as top trading partners like China and India.

Despite the overwhelming support, the tariff provision was not without controversy. Senators Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, and Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, attempted to remove it from the bill but failed. Speaking on the Senate floor, Paul argued that the measure would do nothing to bring peace to Ukraine. "It will not bring peace to Ukraine, but rather will deliberately make American families poorer by increasing tariffs, which are nothing but a tax on imported goods," he said.

Senator Raphael Warnock, a Democrat from Georgia, also voiced reservations. He voted for the bill only after securing a written commitment from U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer that the tariffs would be lifted once countries are no longer classified as top buyers of Russian energy or facilitators of sanctions evasion. Still, Warnock made clear his unease. "We should not have to choose between putting a check on Putin's aggression and putting a check on this president's tariffs regime," he said. He added that if Trump "oversteps his power, we will see him in court."

The vote follows a series of legal defeats for the White House. In February, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose his so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs, upholding lower court rulings. The administration then pivoted to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose temporary 10% tariffs, and later invoked Section 301 of the same law for new levies of 10% to 12.5% on 60 trading partners. Those duties are also expected to face legal challenges, as they are based on accusations of forced labor that critics say are stretched even for developed economies.

Tariffs imposed under the Russia sanctions bill, however, would likely be more difficult to challenge in court. The legislation grants the president open-ended authority, a feature that analysts at the Cato Institute say invites abuse. In a Washington Post op-ed last week, scholars Clark Packard and Scott Lincicome pointed out that the bill does not specify which data will determine the five largest importers of Russian energy. The tariff authority expires in five years, but the bill does not say how long the tariffs themselves will last. Exemptions are not automatic; they require the U.S. Trade Representative to determine that an ally has taken "significant steps" to reduce its imports. And the tariff rates are entirely at the president's discretion.

"Trump could direct the trade representative to set the tariff rate at 100% for one buyer of Russian energy and zero for another. That unchecked authority gives Trump leverage in disputes unrelated to Ukraine," Packard and Lincicome warned. They gave examples: Trump could threaten India with new tariffs as part of trade talks covering farm exports, digital taxes, or drug prices. A new 100% tariff on China could upset the fragile trade truce the world's two largest economies have maintained for the past year.

While Packard and Lincicome accused Trump of abusing "nearly every tariff statute on the books," they placed the bulk of the blame on Congress. The Russia sanctions bill, they argued, is just the latest instance of the legislative branch ceding its trade authority to the executive. "For more than half a century, Congress has delegated broad tariff powers to the president with few limitations," they wrote. "If the president has run wild, it's only because lawmakers took away the guardrails."