Bipartisan senators demand Trump reverse course on Russian diesel plan

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee release lists Jeanne Shaheen, Susan Collins, Richard Blumenthal, Lisa Murkowski, Ron Wyden, Thom Tillis and John Curtis as signers. In their joint statement, reported by PBS News in an AP account, they said: “The United States should not provide Putin with a financial lifeline while Russia continues to kill Ukrainian civilians. The Administration must immediately reverse course”

The 2022 law sets a process for lifting the import ban

Congress enacted the Ending Importation of Russian Oil Act in 2022. It prohibits imports of Russian products that fall within Chapter 27 of the U.S. tariff schedule. The senators argue Trump’s diesel plan conflicts with that prohibition.

The law also lays out a route for a president to end the ban. It requires a written certification, advance consultation with specified congressional committees and a report explaining the basis for the decision at least 45 days before the certification is submitted.

The president can terminate the prohibition only if Russia agrees to withdraw its forces and end hostilities under an agreement accepted by Ukraine, poses no immediate military threat to NATO members, and recognizes Ukrainians’ right to choose their government. If the president makes the required certification, termination takes effect after 90 days unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval.

The senators say the administration failed to consult Congress or provide the required explanation. That is an allegation about compliance with the statutory process, not a legal ruling. The distinction matters: OFAC’s license authorizes certain transactions, while the 2022 law describes how a president may terminate the import prohibition. The senators contend that the license conflicts with the ban and that Congress’s procedures cannot be bypassed.

Thom Tillis, a Republican senator from North Carolina, said on NBC’s Meet the Press, as reported by PBS News in the AP account: “We were very clear that Russia is the aggressor. Russia is the one who can end this war by backing out of territory that they occupied” His argument links the import dispute to Russia’s continuing war against Ukraine, but the statutory issue is narrower: what authority supports the license in light of Congress’s ban and the conditions it set for ending it?

The fuel-cost pitch faces a question of impact

Trump presented the proposed supply as a way to lower fuel costs, naming farmers, ranchers and truckers as people for whom cheaper fuel is a priority. That goal is the administration’s stated policy rationale; it does not resolve the senators’ legal objection.

The promised quantities also do not answer whether the plan would meaningfully reduce prices. Energy experts interviewed by AP questioned whether the added supply would make a substantial difference to U.S. or global prices. One said the diesel might be redirected from existing customers rather than increase the amount available to markets.

The senators’ counterargument is that purchases could send revenue to Russia while its war against Ukraine continues. They did not offer a measured estimate of potential revenue in their statement. The dispute therefore involves both a legal question and a policy trade-off: the stated aim of lowering costs for fuel users versus the senators’ warning about supporting Russia financially.

Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming defended Trump’s balancing of those concerns. Speaking on CBS’s Face the Nation, as reported by PBS News in the AP account, Barrasso said: “The president is balancing and has to make tough decisions” He also described the arrangement as a negotiating tool: “This is just another point of leverage for the president to use against Putin in an effort to get a long-term solution in that part of the world” Barrasso urged Trump to enforce a separate sanctions law Congress passed in September.

That is the strongest counterargument: lower costs are a stated priority, and Barrasso sees the diesel plan as leverage with Putin. But neither an economic goal nor a diplomatic strategy answers whether the administration followed the import law’s requirements. The legal question remains distinct from whether the plan could deliver its promised benefits.

The two laws target different parts of Russian energy trade

The September 2026 law Barrasso cited directs tariffs of up to 100% on goods from certain countries that meet criteria tied to purchases of Russian crude oil or natural gas, or to sanctions evasion. It targets goods from qualifying foreign countries; it is not the 2022 law’s direct ban on covered Russian imports.

That difference keeps the dispute in focus. The later law addresses trade with certain countries connected to Russian energy purchases. The earlier law prohibits specified imports from Russia and sets conditions and steps for a president seeking to lift that prohibition. Enforcing the later law would not, by itself, answer the senators’ challenge under the earlier one.

The senators’ demand puts the administration’s statutory justification at the center of the fight. Congress can press Trump’s administration to explain the authority behind the license, while the 2022 law requires consultation, reporting and certification before the import prohibition can be terminated. The consequential test is whether those safeguards will guide the policy, or whether the administration will proceed without satisfying the process senators say Congress enacted.