Trump Waives Russia Sanctions, Drawing Bipartisan Criticism
President Trump waived nearly all newly signed Russia sanctions as strikes on Ukraine continue, prompting anger in Congress and concern from Kyiv.
President Trump has waived virtually all new sanctions against Russia that he had recently signed, a decision that has drawn sharp reaction from Washington and Kyiv. According to CBS News, the move came while strikes against Ukraine were still ongoing, and it prompted immediate backlash. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy responded that the decision "seems wrong," CBS reports.
PBS NewsHour reports that lawmakers from both parties criticized the executive order, which was issued late on Friday. The outlet describes the waiver as the latest in a series of steps by the Republican president that have moved the United States closer to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Congressional critics expressed outrage, but PBS NewsHour notes that no quick legislative or procedural counter-move had emerged as of its reporting.
The two outlets' accounts point to the same basic sequence: new sanctions were signed, then largely set aside by a subsequent executive action. Neither report, as summarized here, lays out the full legal mechanism used for the waiver or the specific sanctions covered, so those details remain unclear from the available reporting.
The reactions so far have come mainly from Ukraine and from members of Congress, and the scope of any follow-up is not yet known.
Background
Sanctions are one of the main tools Western governments use to pressure states without direct military involvement. Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in 2022, the United States and its allies have built a large and layered sanctions framework targeting banks, energy exports, defense suppliers, and individuals linked to the Kremlin. These measures are typically imposed through executive orders, statutes passed by Congress, or both, and the balance between presidential discretion and legislative control has often been contested.
In the United States, the executive branch generally has wide authority to impose, modify, and waive sanctions under emergency economic powers. Congress has at times pushed back by writing sanctions into law, which can limit a president's ability to lift them without legislative review. Lawmakers may also use oversight hearings, resolutions, or funding restrictions to respond to executive decisions, though such responses take time and often require broad agreement.
Relations between Washington and Moscow have moved through several phases since 2022, including periods of intensive diplomacy and periods of deep hostility. Ukraine has consistently argued that sanctions should remain tied to Russian conduct on the battlefield and to any negotiated settlement. Allies in Europe have generally coordinated sanctions with the United States, so changes in American policy can affect the wider coalition's unity and the effectiveness of pressure on Moscow. Sanctions relief, even when partial or temporary, is widely seen as a significant signal in those negotiations.
Why it matters
The waiver matters first because it touches the credibility of sanctions as a policy tool. Sanctions are meant to impose a cost on a government that continues a military campaign. If newly imposed measures are set aside while strikes continue, allies and adversaries may draw conclusions about how durable American commitments are. That perception can shape decisions in capitals across Europe and beyond, as well as calculations in Moscow.
It also raises constitutional and institutional questions. The reaction from lawmakers of both parties suggests that many in Congress view the decision as an overreach of executive discretion or at least as a poor fit with stated policy goals. How Congress responds, whether through statements, legislation, or oversight, will indicate how much room the executive branch has to reverse course on sanctions without consulting the legislature.
For Ukraine, the decision carries practical weight. Kyiv depends heavily on Western financial, military, and diplomatic support, and sanctions relief for Russia can be read as reducing the pressure that might otherwise push Moscow toward concessions. The public criticism from President Zelenskyy reflects that concern, though the reporting available does not detail the specific effects of the waiver on the ground.
Finally, the episode highlights how quickly policy can shift in the sanctions space. Measures that take months of coordination to build can be altered by a single order, which makes sustained, predictable policy harder to maintain and makes outside partners more cautious about aligning their own steps.
What to watch
The most immediate question is whether Congress moves beyond statements to formal action, such as hearings, resolutions, or proposed legislation that would constrain sanctions relief. Lawmakers' ability to respond quickly has been described as limited, so the pace and form of any response will be telling.
Observers should also watch for the administration's explanation of the waiver's scope and duration, including which sanctions are affected and whether the decision is temporary or open-ended. Clarity on those points is not yet available from the reporting summarized here.
European allies' reactions will matter, since coordinated pressure has been central to the sanctions strategy. Any divergence between Washington and its partners could reshape how pressure on Moscow is applied in the months ahead.
Finally, developments on the battlefield and in any diplomatic channels will shape how the decision is judged, as the rationale for sanctions relief will depend heavily on what happens next.
Viewpoints
Commentary from our columns: three angles on this story.
The Skeptic open questions and weak points
The official explanation for this waiver is still missing from the public record, and that gap deserves attention before anyone settles on a verdict. A decision to set aside newly signed sanctions while strikes on Ukraine continue raises an obvious question: what did the administration expect to gain in return? Until that is spelled out, supporters and critics are arguing over an incomplete picture.
It is also worth asking whether the bipartisan anger in Congress translates into anything more than words. Statements are easy, and quick legislative counters are hard. If lawmakers cannot agree on a concrete response, the waiver may stand regardless of how strongly it is condemned, which tells us something about the limits of congressional oversight in this area.
Finally, the phrase "seems wrong" from President Zelenskyy is a reaction, not a full case. Ukraine's concerns are serious, but the strongest version of the criticism would name the specific effects it expects. Demanding that clarity from every side would make the debate more useful and harder to spin.
The Ground Level what it means for ordinary people
For most people, the headline about sanctions can feel distant, but the stakes reach home in ways that are easy to overlook. Sanctions shape energy markets, the cost of goods, and the stability of the international order that many households rely on without thinking about it. When pressure on a major power eases, the effects can filter down through prices and the sense of security that comes with a predictable world.
For families in Ukraine, the question is far more immediate. Reports of continued strikes mean that people there are living with the consequences of decisions made in distant capitals. Whatever one thinks of the policy, it is worth remembering the human scale of what is happening.
Americans who want to understand this story can start by following what their own representatives say and do. Calls to a senator's or representative's office are a practical way to register a view, and a clear explanation from the administration would help residents judge the decision for themselves.
The Rulebook law, policy and institutions
This episode is a useful case study in how sanctions are governed. Much of the American sanctions system depends on executive authority, which allows a president to impose, adjust, and in some cases waive measures with relatively little advance notice. That flexibility can be valuable in fast-moving diplomacy, but it also makes policy vulnerable to sudden reversal.
Congress has tools to change that balance, including writing sanctions into statute so that changes require legislative action. Whether lawmakers pursue that route will depend on how they read the scope of the executive order and on whether they can agree on language. Procedure matters here, because the form of the response determines how durable it will be.
The reporting available does not yet make clear the precise legal basis for the waiver or its duration. Those details are central to any assessment of whether the decision was within established authority, and they are the places to look as more information becomes public.