The House must turn the screws on Putin

The Hill's opinion piece makes a straightforward case: Congress should act now to cut off the revenue streams that keep Russia's war machine running. The Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act is a legislative attempt to use tariff policy as a weapon of economic warfare, targeting not Russia directly but the third-party nations that continue to buy its energy. It is an indirect approach, and that is precisely what makes it both promising and problematic. On one hand, the logic is sound. Russia's economy is heavily dependent on energy exports, and any policy that reduces those revenues could constrain Moscow's ability to sustain its invasion of Ukraine. By placing the burden on importing nations rather than on U.S. consumers, the bill attempts to achieve maximum pressure with minimal domestic pain. For those who believe sanctions are the most effective non-military tool available, this is a natural next step. The humanitarian angle — helping Ukraine survive a winter of Russian strikes on its energy infrastructure — gives the measure moral urgency. On the other hand, the bill raises serious questions about efficacy and unintended consequences. Tariffs on nations like India and China, both major buyers of Russian crude, could drive them further into Moscow's orbit rather than away from it. There is also the matter of enforcement: secondary sanctions have historically been difficult to apply consistently, and they risk alienating allies who depend on Russian energy out of necessity, not preference. Critics would also note that Congress is attempting to steer foreign policy through trade law, an area where the executive branch has traditionally held wide latitude. Whether this is a bold assertion of legislative authority or an overreach depends largely on one's view of the separation of powers. What makes this debate particularly interesting is the timing. The bill is being considered as the Trump administration pursues a negotiated settlement to the war, and as European nations struggle to wean themselves off Russian gas. A tariff regime of this kind could be a powerful bargaining chip — or it could complicate diplomatic efforts by removing flexibility. The House's decision, then, is not simply about Russia. It is about whether Congress believes economic pressure or diplomatic engagement is the surer path to ending the conflict. As with most matters of foreign policy, the truth likely sits somewhere in between. Sanctions can work, but they work slowly and often with collateral damage. Diplomacy can work, but it rarely succeeds without leverage. The Graham bill offers leverage, but at a cost that is difficult to predict. Readers should weigh the arguments in the original piece — https://thehill.com/opinion/6076874-house-must-pass-russia-sanctions-act/ — alongside the counterarguments about global energy markets and alliance management. The Hill's author is confident in the remedy; the question is whether the cure is worse than the disease.