The Senate appears poised to pass significant new sanctions on Russian oil exports, with bipartisan momentum building despite initial White House hesitation. After three days of intense negotiations, Senate Majority Leader John Thune announced yesterday that a vote is expected by Friday.
“We’ve reached a critical consensus on addressing Russia’s energy revenue streams,” Thune told reporters outside his office. “This legislation represents our strongest response yet to Moscow’s continued aggression in Ukraine and interference in democratic processes worldwide.”
The bill, formally titled the Russian Energy Security Response Act (S.2471), would impose secondary sanctions on financial institutions facilitating Russian oil transactions above $60 per barrel. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, these measures could reduce Russian oil revenue by approximately $32 billion annually, representing nearly 14% of the Kremlin’s current energy income.
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), a key architect of the compromise language, emphasized the significance of the growing coalition. “We’ve built something remarkable here—conservatives and progressives finding common ground on national security priorities,” Murphy said during yesterday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. “The vote count is tracking well above 65 senators supporting this package.”
The legislation’s path through Congress reflects growing concern about Russia’s ability to circumvent existing sanctions. Data from the Treasury Department indicates Russian oil export volume increased 11.3% in the first quarter compared to last year, with much flowing through third-party intermediaries in Asia and the Middle East.
“We’re closing the loopholes Moscow has exploited,” said Senator Jim Risch (R-ID), ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee. “Every barrel sold above cap pricing directly funds their war machine.”
The bill’s momentum comes despite initial caution from President Harris, whose administration worried about potential impacts on global energy markets and inflation. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen initially expressed reservations about the legislation’s scope during testimony last month.
“The administration’s concerns were valid,” explained Dr. Emma Ashford, senior fellow at the Stimson Center’s Conventional Defense Program. “But Congressional leadership made substantive adjustments to implementation timelines and exemption processes that addressed most White House objections.”
Those modifications include a 90-day implementation window and waiver provisions for countries demonstrating good-faith efforts to reduce Russian oil imports. The bill also creates a special envoy position to coordinate with European allies on harmonizing sanctions policies.
Public polling indicates strong voter support for the measure. A recent Pew Research survey found 68% of Americans favor stronger economic restrictions on Russia, with support crossing partisan lines—though enthusiasm is marginally higher among Republican voters.
Industry reaction has been mixed. The American Petroleum Institute cautioned about market disruptions, while environmental groups like Sierra Club expressed qualified support while continuing to push for accelerated renewable energy transitions.
“We’re watching the final language closely,” said Frank Macchiarola, API’s senior vice president of policy. “Our members support the geopolitical objectives but want to ensure stable global energy markets.”
I’ve covered sanctions legislation for nearly two decades, and what’s striking about this package is its unusually broad coalition. The bill has attracted co-sponsors from both progressive and conservative wings of both parties—a rarity in today’s polarized Congress.
The measure faces potentially smoother sailing in the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson has signaled receptiveness to the Senate version rather than pursuing competing legislation. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul told me yesterday the lower chamber could vote on the Senate bill as early as next week if it passes with strong bipartisan numbers.
“There’s a growing recognition that our sanctions architecture needed updating,” McCaul said. “The shadow fleet and alternative payment mechanisms Russia developed required a more sophisticated response.”
Critics remain concerned about unintended economic consequences. Former Treasury sanctions official Juan Zarate warned in recent Congressional testimony that secondary sanctions could accelerate de-dollarization trends in international finance.
“The question isn’t whether these sanctions will hurt Russia—they will,” Zarate testified. “It’s whether they might inadvertently accelerate trends toward alternative financial channels that ultimately undermine dollar primacy.”
The Federal Reserve estimates that such concerns, while valid, may be overstated in the near term. A confidential analysis shared with lawmakers suggests the immediate impact on global dollar usage would be “minimal to moderate,” according to sources familiar with the document.
As the vote approaches, the final push for support continues. Senator Thune’s office confirmed intense discussions with four remaining undecided senators, whose support could push the final tally toward 70 votes—a powerful symbol of unity.
For Ukraine, watching closely from the battlefield, the timing couldn’t be more critical. Spring offensive operations have stalled amid ammunition shortages, with Russian forces making incremental gains in the eastern Donbas region.
“Every dollar we can deny to Russia’s war chest matters,” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said in a statement welcoming the Senate’s progress. “This is not just about sanctions—it’s about saving lives.”
The vote, scheduled for Friday morning, will be a crucial test of America’s resolve to maintain pressure on Moscow nearly three years into the conflict—and a rare moment of bipartisan cooperation in an otherwise divided Washington.
