Trump Waives Russia Sanctions Congress Passed as Row With Zelensky Grows
President Trump has waived many newly passed Russia sanctions, citing national interests, as his public dispute with Ukraine's president deepens.
President Donald Trump has waived a sweeping set of new sanctions against Russia that Congress passed, according to NBC News, which reported that he argued in an executive order issued Friday that the move serves the national interests of the United States.
According to the BBC, the order temporarily ends many restrictions on Moscow that lawmakers had recently approved over national security concerns. The Guardian reports that the legislation was signed last month and was championed by the late senator Lindsey Graham. The restrictions were due to take effect, but Trump has put the package on hold, telling Congress the pause was in the national interest.
The executive order waives many sanctions, restrictions and duties on Russia. The Guardian notes that the decision comes as Trump has publicly criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, including by suggesting that Ukraine needs a new leader.
The reports do not say how long the waiver will last beyond describing it as temporary. Neither outlet detailed how Moscow or Kyiv has responded, and the reporting does not explain which specific measures remain in force.
Background
Sanctions on Russia have built up over more than a decade, beginning with measures after its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and expanding after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Many were imposed through executive action, but Congress has increasingly written its own sanctions into law. Lawmakers from both parties have argued that statutory sanctions carry more weight than executive orders because they are harder to reverse quickly. Some recent sanctions statutes include review or notification requirements that give Congress a say when the executive branch wants to lift or waive penalties.
Presidents also typically hold waiver authority under many sanctions laws. These provisions usually allow temporary relief when the executive branch determines that it serves national interests or security. How that authority is used often becomes a political question, especially when relations with a foreign government are strained or when the president's approach diverges from the views of lawmakers.
U.S. policy toward Ukraine has rested on bipartisan support for military and economic aid, along with a long debate over how hard to press Moscow. Sanctions have been a central tool in that debate, alongside weapons transfers, financial enforcement and diplomatic efforts to end the fighting. Relations between Washington and Kyiv have at times been entangled with domestic American politics, and leaders in both countries have sometimes publicly disagreed over strategy.
Why it matters
The episode raises a basic question about who controls economic pressure on foreign governments in the United States. If a president can set aside a sanctions package that Congress has passed, lawmakers' leverage over foreign policy becomes harder to rely on. That question extends beyond this one case.
It also matters to allies. European governments and Kyiv watch American sanctions closely, because they shape how much pressure Moscow faces and how credible Washington's commitments appear. A pause on new measures could be read as reducing pressure on Russia, while supporters may see it as flexibility in negotiations. The timing, during a public dispute with Ukraine's president, adds a diplomatic layer that makes the decision harder to read.
Businesses that trade with or invest in Russia, along with banks that process such transactions, depend on clear rules. Uncertainty about which restrictions apply, and for how long, can complicate planning. Because the reporting is still developing, the full effect will depend on what follows the executive order.
What to watch
Watch whether the waiver is confirmed as temporary and whether any conditions or deadlines accompany it. Congressional reaction will be important. Lawmakers could seek hearings, demand more information about the decision, or pursue legislation to limit waivers.
Pay attention to how Kyiv and European capitals respond, both to the sanctions pause and to the public criticism of Zelensky. Look for any change in Russia's position in ongoing diplomacy. Finally, monitor how federal agencies implement the order in practice, since guidance on trade and financial enforcement will show how far the pause reaches.
Viewpoints
Commentary from our columns: three angles on this story.
The Rulebook law, policy and institutions
Sanctions law is a tangle of statutes, executive orders and agency regulations, and this episode shows why that tangle matters. When Congress passes a package with broad support and the president then sets it aside, the question is less about Russia than about the constitutional balance between the two branches.
Waiver authority exists for good reasons. Circumstances change, and governments need room to respond. But when waivers appear to override the clear will of both chambers, lawmakers should ask whether the statute's conditions and any review requirements were followed, and whether those requirements need to be tightened.
Institutions work best when rules are predictable. Businesses, allies and adversaries all plan around what the law says, and they lose confidence when the rules can be paused by a single signature. Congress has tools available, including oversight hearings, formal reporting demands and binding language that narrows executive discretion. Using them is not a partisan act. It is how a legislature protects its own role.
The Long View history and context
Sanctions on Moscow have a long history, from Cold War-era trade limits to the measures introduced after 2014 and expanded after 2022. Each phase has raised the same question: how to balance pressure with diplomacy, and who should decide when that balance shifts.
Past presidents of both parties have eased or adjusted sanctions when they judged it useful. The pattern suggests a recurring tension between executive flexibility and congressional firmness, and it rarely resolves cleanly. Ukraine's position has also long depended on Western support, which makes American decisions on pressure and aid especially consequential for Kyiv.
The lesson from that history is that sanctions tend to work best as sustained policy rather than as bargaining chips that shift with personal disputes between leaders. When a measure is paused during a public quarrel, observers can reasonably ask whether it reflects a strategy or a reaction. Governments remember such moments, and so do the people who must live with the consequences of the policy.
The Skeptic open questions and weak points
Several questions deserve answers before anyone reads this as a settled policy shift. The first is duration. Describing the waiver as temporary is not the same as specifying an end date, and the reporting so far does not make clear how long the pause is meant to last.
The second is the rationale. The phrase national interests is broad enough to cover almost any decision. Citizens and lawmakers are entitled to know which specific interests are at stake and how a pause serves them, especially when the measures were passed with substantial congressional backing.
The third is the link to the dispute with Ukraine. If the sanctions pause is meant to create leverage in a separate disagreement, Washington should say so openly. If it is not, the timing still invites questions about how the decision was made. Finally, it is worth asking what the pause signals to Moscow, and whether it strengthens or weakens the case for the restrictions Congress wanted in place.