House gives Donald Trump a blank check to fuel a trade war

By Ray Dombrowski · Reporting from Youngstown · September 17, 2026

On Wednesday, the House passed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 by a vote of 262-159.

On Wednesday, the House passed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 by a vote of 262-159. It’s a piece of legislation that carries the weight of a dead man’s legacy and the expansive ambition of a sitting president. According to the Kyiv Independent, the bill—championed by the late Senator Lindsey Graham before his passing—gives President Donald Trump the authority to slap tariffs of up to 100% on the five largest buyers of Russian oil and gas, specifically targeting the likes of China and India.

To the folks in the gallery, this looks like a moral crusade. To me, it looks like a blank check. I’ve spent my life watching the distance between a ribbon-cutting and a payroll. I know that when you grant a president the power to move the goalposts on global trade without a mandate, the people who pay the price aren't the oligarchs in Moscow; they're the people in places like the Mahoning Valley who see their cost of living spike because a trade war just got a new, unrestricted engine.

A Blank Check for the Tariff Man

The mechanism here is simple: if you buy Russian energy, the U.S. can tax your other exports into oblivion. It is a direct echo of the Oil Embargo of 1941, where targeted economic restrictions on energy trade were used to penalize an aggressor and coerce a change in foreign policy. The logic is the same—use the pump to force a pivot at the negotiating table. But there is a difference between a strategic embargo and a presidential whim.

As CNBC reports, the bill doesn't just target Russia; it expands sanctions on Iran and goes after the "shadow fleet" of tankers used to evade current rules. On paper, it’s a comprehensive squeeze. In practice, it’s a transfer of power. The bill allows President Donald Trump to define who is "facilitating" evasion and, more importantly, allows him to waive the sanctions entirely.

When you give a man a hammer and tell him he can decide who is a nail—and that he can choose not to hit the nails he likes—you aren't legislating. You're delegating the law to a personality. We saw this pattern during the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute in 2012, where energy was used as a geopolitical leash to pressure neighboring states. This bill doesn't end that game; it just gives the United States the biggest leash in the room.

The Moralist's Mirage

The strongest case for this bill comes from Rep. Michael McCaul, who argues that this is a "moral issue" requiring "moral courage" to "bleed the Russian war machine." He wants to be able to say we did everything possible to end the war in Ukraine. It is a compelling argument for those who view foreign policy as a series of principled stands.

But moral courage is a luxury of the people who don't have to audit the resulting inflation. The "moral" path here is built on a loophole. Rep. Don Beyer and other House Democrats pointed out that the bill lacks guardrails, oversight, or an expiration date. They argue that expanding tariff authority without mandating the sanctions is a recipe for price hikes for American families.

They are right, but for the wrong reasons. The Democrats fear the "global trade war," but the real danger is the waiver. If the President can waive sanctions for a strategic partner while hitting a competitor with a 100% tariff, the "moral" objective of crippling Vladimir Putin becomes secondary to the political objective of rewarding friends and punishing enemies. We saw the limits of this approach during the Russia-Ukraine crisis in 2014, when sweeping sanctions on financial institutions were imposed but failed to stop the annexation of Crimea. Sanctions only work when they are a wall; when they are a gate that the President can open or close at will, they are just a bargaining chip.

The Audit of the Shadow Fleet

We have been here before. The Obama sanctions on Iran in 2014 were designed to force diplomatic negotiations through economic pain. The result was a deal that lasted until it didn't. The historical record shows that trade restrictions are most effective when they are predictable and multilateral. When they are unilateral and discretionary, they create a market for evasion.

The bill targets the "shadow fleet" and the top five purchasers of Russian crude, but the reality of the global energy market is that oil flows where the money is. If the U.S. imposes a 100% tariff on India, India doesn't necessarily stop buying Russian oil; they find a different way to move the money or a different market for their goods. The only thing that stays constant is the cost, which eventually trickles down to the American consumer.

Senator Darline Graham, now filling her brother's seat, says this legislation will "pave the way" for peace. I hope she's right, but I've seen too many "monumental days" in Washington to believe that a tariff authority is a peace treaty.

President Donald Trump will sign this bill. He will use the tariffs to squeeze China and India, and he will use the waivers to carve out deals that serve his immediate interests. He will call it "the art of the deal," and the politicians will call it "moral courage." But when the cost of goods rises and the "shadow fleet" simply finds new ports, the only people left holding the bag will be the workers who were told this was about a payroll of peace. This isn't a strategy to end a war; it's a tool to manage a trade war, and in that game, the house always wins while the valley pays the tab.

House gives Donald Trump a blank check to fuel a trade war

A Blank Check for the Tariff Man

The Moralist's Mirage

The Audit of the Shadow Fleet

Sources