Why it Matters

A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report published September 3 examined the Graham Sanctioning Russia Iran Act of 2026 and has identified significant legal ambiguities that could complicate enforcement of the sweeping tariff authorities the measure would grant to the president.

The bill, which was passed by the Senate on August 7, would require the president to impose tariffs of up to 500% ad valorem on all U.S. imports of Russian oil, natural gas, liquefied natural gas, petroleum, petrochemical products, coal, and coal products within 30 days of enactment. These tariffs would layer atop any existing duties already applicable to those imports. The measure also authorizes secondary tariffs of up to 100% ad valorem on imports from the top five largest importers of Russian crude oil or natural gas, as well as on imports from the top five countries facilitating Russian oil sanctions evasion.

The Big Picture

Congress and the Trump administration have aligned behind escalating economic penalties on Russia, and the tariff authorities in the bill would grant the President discretion to reshape trade flows with major U.S. partners. According to CBS News, the secondary tariffs on top five importers of Russian energy could expose major U.S. trading partners to significant tariff penalties. Democratic critics including Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) have warned that the measure creates sweeping new tariff authorities that the president could weaponize with abandon.

However, the CRS report identifies several unresolved questions that could invite litigation or constrain the administration's ability to implement the law as written, as well as a timing conflict embedded in the statute. The president must act within 30 days of enactment, yet the eligibility criterion for secondary tariffs hinges on whether a country has made new purchases of Russian oil or gas on or after 30 days after enactment. The report notes that the deadline for presidential action expires at the very moment the eligibility criterion begins to apply, leaving no clear window in which a qualifying purchase could occur before action is required.

Ambiguity also clouds the scope of secondary tariffs on sanctions evasion. The statute does not clarify whether the "knowingly made new purchases" language applies only to government purchasers or extends to private citizens and corporations. Section 113(c)(2) expressly covers nongovernmental actors in the sanctions evasion context, but the interplay between government and private conduct remains undefined.

The bill provides no objective metric for identifying the top five sanctions-evading countries, effectively granting the president broad discretionary authority.

The Bottom Line

Presidential actions under the measure receive more deferential judicial review than United States Trade Representative (USTR) actions and may be entirely immune to review when committed to presidential discretion. USTR modifications to secondary tariffs, by contrast, would be subject to Administrative Procedure Act review. The bill leaves many trade decisions concerning Russia to the whim of the president, which could harm U.S. trade interests going forward.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article