Ukraine’s top sanctions official says he remains optimistic about prospects for a sweeping Russia sanctions bill in the US Congress despite growing uncertainty over when the House of Representatives will take it up, as lawmakers face a sharply shortened legislative calendar ahead of the November elections.
Vladyslav Vlasiuk, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s sanctions commissioner, spent this week in Washington meeting lawmakers and congressional staff as Kyiv presses Congress to advance the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026.
The legislation passed the Senate on August 7 by an overwhelming 86-11 vote, reflecting rare bipartisan agreement. The bill would give the president additional authority to impose punitive tariffs on countries that continue buying Russian fossil fuels. It also includes provisions targeting Iran, which Vlasiuk said is engaged in close military-industrial cooperation with Moscow.
But the measure faces a more complicated path in the House, where some Democrats have expressed reservations about provisions that would give President Donald Trump additional authority to impose tariffs.
Republican leaders announced on September 3 that the final two weeks of the pre-election House session are canceled, severely curtailing what had been a full legislative calendar for September.
House members are expected to leave Washington no later than September 17 and not return until mid-November. The House will reconvene for one additional week of business after next week’s Labor Day break.
The compressed calendar has increased pressure on supporters of the sanctions legislation. Senior Republican aides told RFE/RL that the bill remains a GOP priority, provided Democrats “get their ducks in a row.”
Democratic aides, in response to RFE/RL inquiries, expressed cautious optimism about the measure, underscoring uncertainty over whether Speaker Mike Johnson will bring it to the floor.
Vlasiuk: ‘Good Chance’
Vlasiuk said he held roughly 20 meetings with lawmakers and congressional staff during his Washington visit, including discussions with members of both parties.
He said the Ukrainian delegation encountered broad support for increasing pressure on Russia and that no lawmaker told him outright that they would oppose the legislation.
“Everyone agreed that it was necessary to increase pressure on Russia,” Vlasiuk said at a briefing at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington. “No one said that he definitely would not support this bill.”
He described Ukraine as “quite optimistic” about the level of support for the legislation, including among Democrats.
One potentially important route would be for the House to consider the bill under suspension of the rules, a fast-track procedure generally used for legislation expected to command broad support. Vlasiuk said that was among the realistic scenarios for moving the bill forward.
“I think that there is really good chance that this bill will be brought onto the floor,” he said.
Vlasiuk has previously identified the week after next as Kyiv’s preferred window for a House vote. With the House calendar now compressed, that period could provide one of the last opportunities for a vote before lawmakers leave Washington.
Asked by RFE/RL whether the momentum surrounding the bill was still there, Vlasiuk pointed to what he characterized as continued bipartisan backing for Ukraine.
“There is a lot of support for Ukraine on the Hill,” he said, adding that Kyiv has been “very vocal” in stressing the urgency of passing the bill. “At the same time, well, I mean, let’s wait and see,” Vlasiuk said.
Democrats Wary Of Trump Powers
The principal obstacle is not broad disagreement over confronting Russia, according to Thomas Melia, a former senior State Department official and Senate Foreign Relations Committee deputy staff director who is currently with the Free Russia Foundation.
In an interview with RFE/RL, Melia explained that Democratic leaders have several reasons for hesitating. One is that the legislation is not strictly necessary for the administration to impose sanctions, he said. Trump already possesses significant authority to sanction Russian individuals and entities.
The bill’s principal value, in Melia’s assessment, is therefore partly political and symbolic: Its bipartisan backing would demonstrate congressional resolve to increase pressure on Moscow.
But Melia said the House Democratic leadership was not sufficiently involved in negotiating the version that ultimately emerged from the Senate.
That concern is particularly relevant to Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who has expressed general support for tougher pressure on Russia but has raised concerns about provisions of the legislation.
There is also a substantive concern: The final version of the legislation gives the president additional tariff authority. Melia said that has created hesitation among Democrats who are wary of giving Trump another instrument that could be used broadly against US trading partners.
Melia also emphasized another change from the bill’s earlier form: The final version makes the sanctions optional rather than mandatory.
That distinction matters, he said, because the original legislation’s political force came in part from its mandatory sanctions provisions and overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate.
After the death of Senator Lindsey Graham, the administration backed a version of the legislation but sought changes that made sanctions nonmandatory and added tariff authority, Melia said.
The result, in his view, is a weaker measure than the original. Melia said the final version nevertheless retains substantial political significance because of the broad bipartisan support that surrounded the tougher proposal.
Kyiv Backs Tariffs
Vlasiuk defended the tariff provisions, arguing that they could make sanctions substantially more effective. “This is a powerful instrument which will allow to amplify the effect of the sanctions,” he said.
He argued that tariffs and sanctions can have similar economic effects but differ in their ability to be circumvented.
“Sanctions can be adapted, sanctions can be evaded, tariffs cannot be adapted or evaded,” Vlasiuk said.
He also rejected concerns that countries could be arbitrarily targeted under the bill, saying the legislation establishes criteria based on purchases of Russian fossil fuels.
In particular, he pointed to China and India, which Ukraine considers central to Russia’s continued ability to sell its energy exports.
Vlasiuk said the pressure could represent “a huge blow” to Russia’s ability to finance its war against Ukraine.
Ukraine also supports the bill’s inclusion of Iran, he said, citing Tehran’s close military cooperation with Moscow.
“Everyone understands how close cooperation is between the military-industrial complex of these countries,” Vlasiuk said. “Therefore, Iran is very well-deserved.”
House Vote Window Narrows
The political stakes are heightened by the House’s decision to cancel its final two weeks of pre-election legislative work.
The chamber is expected to depart Washington no later than September 17, although Republican leaders have said members could be recalled if the Senate advances a party-line budget reconciliation package. That scenario is not currently expected.
Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, a Republican who has supported the sanctions effort, described the lack of congressional action as a serious failure.
“This is a real shame. It passed 86-11 in the Senate,” Bacon said. “Congressional inaction on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and on Putin’s crimes is a real failure. The history books will not be kind.”
For Kyiv, the urgency is not simply legislative.
Vlasiuk warned that Ukraine faces another difficult winter after months of Russian missile and drone attacks. He said 160 people had been killed in missile and drone strikes in recent months.
“We have to increase the pressure over Russia to make them change their plans, to make them really negotiate,” he said.
He argued that passing the sanctions bill now would have two effects: It could eventually increase economic pressure on Russia, while immediately sending a political signal to both Ukraine and the Russian government.
There is, he said, an element of inertia in sanctions policy. Even after legislation passes, implementing measures can take days, and producing a significant effect on Russia’s economy can take weeks.
“But at the same time, the very fact of passing this sanction bill,” Vlasiuk said, would send a “strong signal of support to Ukrainian people” and a “really strong signal to Russian government.”
By RFE/RL
