Feel good legislation pending in the U.S. Senate that imposes harsh sanctions on countries that purchase Russian oil has a provision included that would greatly expand tariff authority for the Trump Administration. Section 113 of the bill authorizes up to 100% tariffs on the top five counties that purchase Russian oil and gas to increase the pressure of sanctions on Russia. This is a problematic idea, because it likely would reignite a trade war while doing little to nothing to end the war in Ukraine.
The Senate is likely to take up this legislation soon. Axios reported on July 23, 2026, “the bill, which has more than 60 cosponsors, has been revised twice since Graham's sudden passing on July 11” and “senators lowered the overall rate of secondary tariffs from 500% to 100% and narrowed the scope of the bill, allowing Trump to tariff no more than five countries.” There is wide support for sanctions on Russia, but a provision that would expand unpopular tariff authority that has measurably caused inflation seems unwise.
Republicans who generally support tariffs to increase domestic manufacturing might want to take a second look at this bill and specifically that provision that allows new tariff authority. If the purpose of tariffs is to incentivize the expansion of domestic manufacturing, this misses the mark. Furthermore, any new tariff authority will indirectly hike prices for Americans when the sanctioned nations respond with trade penalties on the United States. The push for new tariff authority has zero to do with increasing manufacturing domestically and has everything to do with tariffs being used as a proxy for sanctions against nations that import Russian oil and gas.
The five nations targeted are likely to respond igniting new trade war. According to the Atlantic Council, the likely five nations that will be hit with a new tariff are China, India, Slovakia, Hungary and Azerbaijan. Many experts make the point that tariffs on China and India will not end the war in Ukraine. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) concluded on July 16, 2026, after studying the bill that “Section 113 is a bigger deal, both economically and diplomatically,” because “it won’t change anyone’s mind with respect to the war in Ukraine.” CEI also makes the point that the original push for tariffs on China “were intended to convince China to make needed reforms on intellectual property theft, state control or ownership of foreign businesses, and other unfair trading practices. They didn’t work. Beijing did not make a single substantive reform.” One of the selling points on tariffs is to change a foreign government’s policy. This did not work with the first round of tariffs on China.
I am old enough to remember when Republicans were against tariffs and Democrats were for tariffs. Tariffs end up being taxes on American importers passed on to consumers. Just mention the history of tariffs that includes the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 that was implemented during a severe economic downturn to see how that tariff tax helped extend and enhance the impact of the Great Depression. In addition to the folly of high tariffs, the idea that this bill will help end the war in Ukraine is not credible.
As a political issue, passing this bill seems like a big mistake for Republicans. The two biggest issues hampering Republicans going into the midterms is the Iran war and inflation. Americans see gas prices and the increased cost of groceries as a proxy for inflation. For most, inflation is directly correlated to the price of the goods they purchase daily. This provision of the bill will indirectly make inflation a bigger problem. Perhaps that deliberately increasing the cost of living in an election year is not exactly a sound campaign strategy for a party struggling for issues to champion. More tariffs seem like a message that will hit with a thud in November for Republicans who campaign on that issue.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), my former boss, has been a lone voice pushing back on government-imposed taxes that hit American consumers and make it difficult for some domestic manufacturers who rely on inputs imported from tariffed nations to succeed. Sen. Paul is against this provision of the Graham Sanctioning Russia Act, and it will be interesting to see if Senate Republicans take another political hit for the team or if they recognize a vote for more tariff authority is a bad political gamble.
The merits of the Russian sanctions bill aside, support for a provision buried in the bill that expands tariff authority in the name of ending the Ukraine war seems like political self-destruction married to bad policy.
