The U.S. House of Representatives has taken steps to advance a sweeping new sanctions package targeting Russia and Iran, seeking to intensify economic pressure on Moscow and give President Donald Trump additional leverage to push Russia toward negotiations with Ukraine.
The move on August 10 came just days after the Senate overwhelmingly approved the legislation by a vote of 86-11, demonstrating strong bipartisan support for tougher measures against Russia.
The House bill, introduced by Republican lawmakers Michael McCaul of Texas and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, along with Democrat Steny Hoyer of Maryland and a broad bipartisan group of co-sponsors, is identical to the legislation approved by the Senate.
Named after the late Senator Lindsey Graham, the 2026 Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act would target Russian banks, energy revenues, oligarchs, the Kremlin-linked “shadow fleet,” sanctions-evasion networks and foreign governments and companies that help finance Moscow’s war against Ukraine. It would also extend longstanding sanctions on Iran through 2031.
The rapid action in the House, despite the August recess, gives supporters an opportunity to build on the strong bipartisan Senate vote. However, lawmakers could still face difficult negotiations over provisions granting the president broad authority to impose tariffs on countries that continue purchasing Russian energy.
Pressure on Russia’s war economy
McCaul, a former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he had promised Graham before his death that he would introduce the legislation in the House.
“Senator Graham was a towering national security figure, a statesman of unmatched conviction and a personal friend and mentor,” McCaul said, adding that Graham had worked on the legislation for more than a year and had secured support from the White House.
McCaul said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had told him during a visit to Ukraine last month that Kyiv was prepared for a ceasefire and negotiations, while Russian President Vladimir Putin continued to refuse to enter talks.
The Texas Republican said the sanctions would increase pressure on Putin and advance what he described as Graham’s vision for a lasting peace.
Hoyer, one of the House’s most senior Democrats, said the measure was long overdue.
The Maryland Democrat said the bill would target several of Russia’s key sources of war financing, including oil and gas revenues, the “shadow fleet” and financial institutions.
“We must send the strongest possible message of American support as Ukraine defends democracy against despotism,” Hoyer said.
However, Hoyer also highlighted a significant limitation: the sanctions package does not include several provisions contained in separate Ukraine-support legislation, including $8 billion in military and reconstruction assistance, as well as sanctions related to the abduction of Ukrainian children and their transfer to Russia.
That omission could fuel a broader debate in the House over whether sanctions alone are sufficient to influence the course of the war.
Potential tariffs of up to 500 percent
The most powerful and potentially controversial provision would give Trump expanded authority to impose tariffs on countries that continue purchasing Russian oil and gas or assist Moscow in evading sanctions.
The legislation would authorize tariffs of up to 500 percent on imports from Russia and targeted tariffs of up to 100 percent on goods from countries that are among the largest purchasers of Russian crude oil or natural gas, or major facilitators of sanctions evasion involving Russian oil.
Hoyer said negotiations could continue over the precise scope of the president’s tariff authority.
One proposal would limit the measure to eight countries whose imports are helping finance Russia’s war effort. That provision could become a major point of contention when lawmakers return to Washington.
Supporters argue that the threat of tariffs is precisely what could make the legislation effective by forcing countries that continue buying Russian energy to weigh access to the U.S. market against their commercial relationships with Moscow.
Critics, however, could argue that sweeping tariff powers risk creating economic consequences beyond Russia and would give the White House substantial discretion over trade policy.
Targeting Russia’s financial and energy networks
The legislation goes well beyond sanctions against individual Russian officials.
It would target senior Russian officials, oligarchs, companies supporting Russia’s defense industry and foreign actors providing material assistance to Moscow’s military operations or efforts to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, democratic institutions and critical infrastructure.
The bill would also impose sanctions on major Russian financial institutions and certain foreign financial institutions conducting significant transactions with sanctioned Russian banks.
Another major target is Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” — the vessels, owners, operators, insurers, ports and intermediaries involved in transporting Russian oil and sanctioned commodities while helping Moscow circumvent Western restrictions.
The legislation would prohibit new U.S. investments in Russia, restrict investment in Russia’s energy sector, prohibit purchases of Russian sovereign debt and target financial messaging services used to evade sanctions.
Energy provisions sit at the heart of the strategy.
Supporters argue that revenues from Russian oil and gas remain critical to the Kremlin’s ability to finance its military campaign despite years of Western sanctions.
Sanctions would extend beyond Russia
The legislation also contains significant provisions targeting Iran.
It would extend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 through 2031, preserving authorities for sanctions against Iran’s energy and weapons sectors.
Republican Mike Rogers said the Iran provisions were necessary because of Tehran’s threats to freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and its support for Russia.
The bill would also target Chinese entities accused of supporting Russia’s defense-industrial base, adding another geopolitical dimension to the legislation as Washington confronts the expanding strategic relationship between Moscow and Beijing.
Conditions for lifting Russia sanctions
One of the bill’s most significant provisions would establish conditions under which Russia-related sanctions could be lifted.
The legislation would allow the president to remove sanctions only after certifying to Congress that Russia had signed a peace agreement accepted by Ukraine’s free and independent government and had ended military actions and activities aimed at overthrowing, dissolving or undermining the Ukrainian government.
Supporters say the provision is designed to ensure sanctions remain a tool of diplomatic pressure rather than becoming a temporary punishment that can be removed without meaningful changes in Russian policy.
Fitzpatrick said the objective was a peace “defined by Ukraine, not imposed by Moscow.”
Democratic Representative Chrissy Houlahan likewise described sanctions as a diplomatic tool, while warning that they cannot replace a broader strategy or the president’s responsibility to seek congressional authorization for war.
Strong bipartisan backing
The legislation has attracted significant support from both Republicans and Democrats.
Among the Republican supporters are Joe Wilson of South Carolina, Don Bacon of Nebraska, Mike Rogers of Alabama, Mike Turner of Ohio, Ann Wagner of Missouri, Andy Barr of Kentucky and Nathaniel Moran of Texas.
Democratic supporters include Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts, Jill Tokuda of Hawaii, Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Ed Case of Hawaii, Eugene Vindman of Virginia and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania.
Fitzpatrick said the legislation targets what he described as three pillars supporting Putin’s war machine: “oil, money and the willingness of others to look the other way.”
For supporters of Ukraine, the challenge now is maintaining the unusually strong bipartisan consensus demonstrated by the Senate vote while resolving disagreements over the scope of presidential tariff powers.
The Senate has already delivered an overwhelming 86-11 vote in favor of the package. The next test will be whether the House can preserve that consensus and move the Graham sanctions package toward becoming law.
