The "hellish sanctions" bill against Russia, which is currently stalling in the House, has run into trouble not because of any sympathy for Moscow, but because of what it would do to American governance and global trade. Opposition has come from both Democrats and Republicans, a rare alignment that points to a shared concern: the bill would give the president far too much power over trade policy, with few checks and balances to prevent its misuse.
The legislation would authorize the president to impose tariffs of up to 100% on goods from major buyers of Russian energy, such as China and India, and a 500% tariff on Russian imports into the US. While aimed at pressuring Moscow, this authority could easily be applied to other nations, including US allies like Japan or European countries that still rely on Russian gas. Lawmakers are wary of repeating the damaging trade war with China, and they see this bill as a potential catalyst for broader economic conflict. More importantly, the bill contains minimal congressional oversight — the president could suspend or modify these measures simply by notifying Congress, with no veto power or approval process available to legislators. This effectively bypasses the constitutional role of Congress in regulating foreign commerce, creating a permanent tool that any president could wield against partners and adversaries alike, for purposes entirely unrelated to Ukraine.
The bill's stalling reflects a practical, bipartisan recognition that handing over such sweeping tariff authority is a risk the US cannot take. Punishing Russia is a legitimate goal, but not at the cost of undermining congressional checks on executive power and inviting a new wave of trade instability. Until a narrower, better-defined alternative emerges, this legislation is likely to remain stuck — and for good reason.
#Congress #sanctions #foreignpolicy #tradewar #trade #Russia #China #India
Don't miss it, subscribe to
Old Glory Vortex 
