Graham's Game: Will the United States Intensify Sanctions Against Moscovia?

On 1st April, Senators Lindsey Graham (Republican from South Carolina) and Richard Blumenthal (Democrat from Connecticut) introduced the "Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025" (SRA2025).

According to Graham , the bill proposes "bone-breaking sanctions" designed to cripple Moscovia's war machine, which continues to operate thanks to hundreds of billions of dollars earned from energy exports. An intriguing feature of SRA2025 is the imposition of 500% tariffs on imports from countries that purchase Moscovia’s oil products and uranium.

Currently, over 80 senators support this bill. There's also increasing support in the House of Representatives for a companion bill, authored by Republican Brian Fitzpatrick. The broad bipartisan backing for the act indicates a high level of consensus among lawmakers for more stringent actions concerning Moscovia.

The bill's fate, however, still hinges on whether President Donald Trump will endorse it. Trump appears unwilling to intensify sanctions on Moscovia, despite frequently threatening them.

Yet, while Trump's position is discernible, Senator Lindsey Graham's motivation is less so. Why is this politician, who cultivated a strong relationship with Trump through unceasing flattery and opportunism, advocating for a bill to strengthen sanctions against Moscovia – a move the President does not support?

A Senator Acting Purely in Self-Interest

Senator Lindsey Graham's strategy is to consistently prioritise Senator Lindsey Graham. It's crucial to grasp Graham's distinctive approach, which balances between passionate advocacy for Ukraine and a refusal to vote for new aid packages for Ukraine. Therefore, to determine whether SRA2025 represents mere populism from Graham or a tangible instrument, we must assess if the senator himself has a personal vested interest.

At present, Graham is not overstepping the boundary in relationship with Trump, which is a mainstream survival rule in American politics. However, the advancement of a bill on Moscovian sanctions in the Senate, or even its mere mention in the media, exerts unwelcome pressure on Trump. Should such a document be put to a vote and secure the support of over 80 out of 100 senators, it would directly implicate Trump, as he is unwilling to intensify pressure on Putin.

Hence, irritating Trump does not align with Graham's typical behaviour, which dictates maintaining favour and therefore avoiding topics and actions that irritate the President.

The explanation for Graham's behaviour might reside in the March events. The fact is, Graham is seeking re-election to the Senate in 2026. He officially announced this at the beginning of the year. And in March, Graham did receive public endorsement for his re-election bid from Trump.

It was only after Graham secured this support, thereby neutralising internal party rivals, that he initiated active progress with the sanctions project. This involved both gathering support in the Senate and holding meetings in Europe (for example, with the French Foreign Minister).

A hypothesis to account for Graham's heightened activity could be this: he aspires to attain the position of Senate Majority Leader or is even preparing to attempt to realise his long-held ambition of contending for the presidency in 2028. Graham was previously thought to become the Republican presidential nominee in 2016, but a lack of financial backing and Donald Trump curtailed his bid.

Regardless, Graham needs to remain in the Senate after 2026. He effectively secured this in March thanks to Trump's endorsement. However, the second indispensable component is financial support. Graham needs to become "first among equals" in the Senate, and thus he must undertake something that distinguishes him.

Advocating for the bill to strengthen sanctions against Moscovia will enable Graham to demonstrate his capacity to unify senators around him to potential Republican investors.

Is Graham pressuring Trump or following orders?

"America’s shameful withdrawal from Afghanistan not only damaged our reputation, it invited aggression around the world. If the U.S. continues to decisively lead the effort to end the Moscovia-Ukraine war, that can change. Mr. Trump can restore our reputation and bring an end to the bloodshed. [...] As Senator Thune said last week, if Putin continues to play games, the Senate will act. I hope for the best, but when it comes to the war criminal in Moscow, we all must be ready for the same," - Senator Lindsey Graham underscored in his column for the Wall Street Journal at the end of May.

Such public announcements by Graham in The Wall Street Journal are interesting within the framework of two probable scenarios for what's unfolding:

1. Graham is Pressuring Trump. The senator's column exerts pressure on Trump because Graham combines three unpleasant aspects for the head of the White House, when Trump fails to react to Putin's behaviour:

• He draws a parallel with Afghanistan (one of Trump's top media themes against Biden).

• He places responsibility on Trump for restoring the U.S.'s reputation.

• He emphasises that Putin is a "criminal."

2. Graham's actions are coordinated with at least a portion of the White House — for the media legitimation of potential future shifts in approach. For at least two years, Trump and his MAGA entourage have actively saturated their electorate with anti-Ukrainian rhetorics and promises that Trump would very quickly end the war between Moscovia and Ukraine. Simply admitting mistakes and reversing policy isn't feasible. Therefore, Graham's activity could be preparing the ground for a change in the Trump administration's policy towards Moscovia.

However, on 6th June, the Wall Street Journal reported that over recent weeks, the White House had been privately pressuring Lindsey Graham to weaken his Moscovia sanctions bill. Specifically, White House representatives proposed including exemptions in SRA2025 that would allow Trump to choose against whom or what sanctions would be imposed. Another way to soften the bill is to replace "shall" with "may" throughout the text, removing the mandatory nature of the stipulated penalties. Removing the mandatory nature of sanctions would make Graham's bill toothless, and indeed, largely unnecessary, as Trump already possesses the ability to impose sanctions at will.

Graham publicly stated that he plans to make at least some changes to the bill, including adding wording that would allow for exceptions for countries providing military or economic assistance to Ukraine. This provision aims to protect Ukraine's European partners from the 500% tariffs, as they still import Moscovian energy resources. But, according to WSJ, Graham has not publicly endorsed the changes that the Trump administration is pushing him to make.

Trump himself stated that SRA2025 should not proceed without his direct approval. "They're waiting for me to decide what to do," Trump said, describing Graham's bill as "tough."

Rescuing Trump's Tariff Policy?

Through his own bill, Graham is simultaneously proposing to rescue Trump's tariff policy, or more precisely, to protect this policy via Congress.

For instance, on 28th May, a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of International Trade declared tariffs imposed by President Trump unlawful, ruling that he had exceeded his authority. The court stated that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, which Trump cited to justify the tariffs, does not grant him such powers.

As the WSJ writes, tariff responsibility usually rests with Congress, but for decades it has delegated many powers to the President. The Court of International Trade's decision states that Congress's delegation of "unlimited tariff powers would constitute an improper transfer of legislative authority to another branch of government."

The very next day, the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals temporarily reinstated the tariffs established by Trump in April 2025, to determine whether to extend the suspension of the Court of International Trade's ruling. And on 10th June, the Federal Court of Appeals allowed President Trump to keep the "most radical tariffs" in effect — pending the review of lower court decisions that block them on the grounds that the President exceeded his authority. However, the case is not yet definitely closed, so Trump's tariff policy remains under threat.

Lindsey Graham's bill could be the instrument to salvage this tariff policy. If approved by Congress, it would protect the President's tariffs: what court would rule against a President relying on an Act passed by Congress?

The only thing holding Trump back is Putin's promises regarding mediation and pressure on Iran in the context of concluding a new nuclear deal. However, U.S.-Iranian negotiations are currently on the verge of collapse. If the Kremlin fails to succeed in communicating with Iran in the manner Trump desires, then Moscovia's services become unnecessary. Consequently, perhaps Graham's bill might indeed have a chance of approval?

Graham is a populist, but this bill is driven by his personal motivation, as it marks his pre-election campaign launch. That's why he's exerting maximum effort and devising various approaches to motivate Trump.