President Donald Trump has signed legislation expanding US sanctions against Russia and authorising tariffs of up to 100 percent on certain major buyers of Russian energy. The law is intended to increase pressure on Moscow over the war in Ukraine, but its effects will depend on how Washington uses its new powers and how affected trading partners respond
INR Report: Based on reporting by RT HERE, examined against the White House announcement and additional reporting on the legislation.
What Trump Has Signed
On 18 September 2026, President Donald Trump signed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 into law.
The White House announcement confirms that the legislation expands sanctions, tariffs and other restrictions relating to Russia, while extending existing sanctions on Iran.
The law targets Russian officials, financial institutions, defence and energy entities, and networks involved in circumventing existing restrictions. It also addresses vessels used to transport Russian oil outside established Western sanctions arrangements, commonly described as Russia's shadow fleet.
Its most consequential trade provision extends beyond Russia itself. The legislation gives the US administration authority to impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on goods from certain major purchasers of Russian oil and natural gas.
The distinction is important: signing the law establishes the legal authority for these measures. It does not mean that every eligible country has already been subjected to a 100 percent tariff.
The administration retains discretion over implementation, including tariff rates and the use of waivers.
Why Russian Energy Buyers Are in Washington's Sights
Russia earns revenue by exporting oil and natural gas. The US legislation seeks to increase the cost of maintaining those commercial relationships for major importing countries.
Rather than relying solely on restrictions against Russian producers, banks and shipping networks, Washington can now threaten additional tariffs on goods imported into the United States from countries purchasing Russian energy.
That creates a second channel of pressure. A country buying Russian oil could face a higher cost when selling unrelated products to the American market.
The law does not explicitly name China or India in the provision described by RT. Both are major purchasers of Russian energy and have been identified in reporting as countries potentially affected by its implementation.
Whether a particular country is targeted, and at what rate, will depend on the statutory criteria and subsequent US decisions.
The mechanism is intended to reduce demand for Russian energy by making continued purchases more costly for importing countries. Whether it achieves that objective will depend on their available alternative supplies, trade exposure to the United States and willingness to change purchasing arrangements.
The Difference Between a 100 Percent Ceiling and an Applied Tariff
The headline figure is the maximum tariff authorised for the relevant category of energy buyers, not a confirmed rate imposed on every affected country.
The administration can set a lower rate and has powers to waive or suspend certain measures under the law.
Those provisions were significant during negotiations between the White House and Congress. They preserve room for the administration to adjust economic pressure according to diplomatic and commercial circumstances.
The original sanctions proposal, introduced in 2025, contemplated tariffs as high as 500 percent. The final legislation reduced the relevant ceiling for major Russian energy buyers to 100 percent.
This change does not make the new authority insignificant. A substantial tariff could still alter the economics of trade with the United States for an affected exporter.
But the final text must be distinguished from the earlier proposal, and the existence of tariff authority must be distinguished from its actual use.
Congress Expands the President's Options
The legislation passed the Senate by 86 votes to 11 in August and the House of Representatives by 262 votes to 159 on 16 September.
Its passage demonstrates support across party lines for additional pressure on Russia, although lawmakers disagreed about the scope of the tariff powers delegated to the president.
Supporters argue that sanctions on Russian energy revenue and the countries helping sustain it could increase Moscow's incentive to negotiate an end to the war.
Critics have raised concerns about the potential costs to American consumers and businesses, the consequences for relations with trading partners, and the breadth of the president's authority to impose or waive tariffs.
These are distinct questions. Congress has authorised a wider range of measures, but their economic and diplomatic effects cannot be established from the legislative vote alone.
The relevant evidence will emerge from the administration's implementing decisions, the responses of affected countries and changes in energy and trade flows.
Moscow Warns of Higher Prices and Harder Peace Talks
Russia has criticised the legislation.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned that the measure would complicate efforts to reach a peaceful settlement in Ukraine.
The Russian Embassy in Washington also argued that restricting Russian energy trade while Middle Eastern supplies are disrupted could increase fuel prices in the United States.
Those are positions advanced by Russian officials. They do not establish that the new law will necessarily raise American fuel prices or prevent negotiations.
The US administration's stated rationale is different: reducing the revenue available to Russia and increasing pressure on Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine.
Both the economic and diplomatic consequences remain dependent on implementation.
Sanctions may reduce revenue to a targeted exporter, but they can also redirect trade, alter prices, increase transport costs and create incentives for alternative payment or shipping arrangements.
Assessing the law's effects will require more than measuring the number of sanctions announced. It will require evidence of changes in Russian export earnings, purchasing decisions by major customers and the costs borne by other economies.
Energy Security Complicates the Sanctions Strategy
The legislation arrives during disruption to international energy markets.
RT reports that the Trump administration recently permitted temporary transactions involving Russian oil already at sea to ease pressure on supply during the conflict involving Iran.
That illustrates a tension in the policy. Washington seeks to restrict Russian energy revenue while also managing the risk that reduced oil availability could increase prices for consumers and businesses.
The two objectives are not automatically compatible in every market condition.
If alternative supplies are readily available, importers may be able to reduce purchases from Russia without substantial disruption. If supplies are constrained, a rapid change in purchasing patterns could increase costs or shift demand to other producers.
The effect will also differ among countries. Their exposure depends on how much Russian energy they buy, what substitutes they can obtain and how important access to the American market is to their exporters.
The new law gives Washington leverage over those decisions. It does not give Washington direct control over the energy policies of other sovereign states.
The Diplomatic Question
The sanctions law is being introduced while efforts to negotiate an end to the Ukraine war remain unresolved.
Supporters of additional sanctions contend that economic pressure can change Moscow's calculation of the costs of continuing the war.
Russian officials argue that further restrictions will make negotiations more difficult.
Neither proposition can be treated as the established outcome of legislation signed only days ago.
A useful distinction is between the law's intended purpose and the conditions required for a negotiated settlement. Sanctions may affect Russia's financial position, but an agreement would still need to address the parties' positions on territory, security arrangements and enforcement.
The earlier eLocal INR report on John Mearsheimer's Ukraine interview examined those negotiating obstacles. The new sanctions law adds economic pressure to that environment without resolving the underlying disagreements by itself.
Does This Affect New Zealand?
New Zealand is not a principal purchaser of Russian oil or natural gas, and the legislation does not automatically impose a new tariff on New Zealand exports.
Its possible effects on New Zealand are more indirect.
New Zealand households and businesses are exposed to international fuel prices through transport, freight, aviation and imported goods. If sanctions implementation changes global energy supply or prices, those effects could flow through to domestic costs.
The direction and scale of any price movement cannot be inferred from the law alone. They will depend on actual restrictions, exemptions, available supply and the responses of major energy importers.
Trade is another area to watch. China and India are important participants in the international trading system, and both have substantial commercial relationships with New Zealand. If either faces new US tariffs because of Russian energy purchases, changes in its export activity, currency conditions or domestic demand could have consequences for other trading partners.
That is a potential transmission route, not evidence that New Zealand exports have already been affected.
The legislation also raises a question relevant to smaller trading countries: how far can a major economy use access to its domestic market to influence another country's purchases from a third country?
The United States has enacted the authority to apply this form of pressure. Its eventual reach will be determined by the measures actually imposed and by how other governments and businesses respond.
For New Zealand, the practical matters to monitor are fuel costs, supply-chain reliability, export-market conditions and any changes to the sanctions rules affecting New Zealand businesses.
The signing of the law is a confirmed development. Its full economic and diplomatic consequences are not yet known.
Sources
Independent reporting. Original context. Credited sources.