FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — Russian oil company Lukoil says it is selling its international assets in response to sanctions imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump that aim to push Russia to agree to a ceasefire in its war against Ukraine.

The company said in a statement that it was already talking with potential purchasers. The transactions would be carried out under a sanctions grace period that allows transactions with Lukoil until Nov. 21, and the company said it would seek an extension if necessary to complete the transactions.

Lukoil has stakes in oil and gas projects in 11 countries. It has refineries in Bulgaria and Romania and a 45% stake in a refinery in the Netherlands, as well as gas stations in a number of countries.

Trump on Oct. 22 announced new sanctions against Lukoil and Rosneft, Russia’s two biggest oil companies accounting for roughly half of the country’s oil exports. Oil and gas revenues are a major source of government revenues in Russia. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called on Russia to immediately agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine.

The sanctions make it difficult for Lukoil and Rosneft to do business outside of Russia. In addition to barring U.S. businesses from dealing with the two companies, the sanctions carry the threat of secondary sanctions on foreign banks that handle their transactions. That means any bank that wants to maintain contact with the dominant U.S. financial system will think twice about doing business with them.

Rosneft has a stake in a refinery in Schwedt, Germany, but the German government has taken custody of the stake and the facility no longer sends revenue to the parent company.

The sanctions take aim at Lukoil and Rosneft’s sales to India and China. Russia shifted oil flows to Asia after the European Union barred most Russian seaborne oil imports.

The sanctions have raised questions about whether refineries in India would halt purchases to avoid entanglement with sanctions. The two companies account for some 60% of India’s imports of Russian crude, according to Shumita Deveshwar, chief India economist at GlobalData TS Lombard. Trump has put a 25% import tariff on India goods above a 25% tariff on most Indian goods imports to the US.

Asked about Trump pressuring India and China to stop buying Russian energy, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Tuesday told a conference call of reporters: “We are offering our product. This product is of strategic importance to many countries. It is competitive, it is attractive. And then it’s up to the countries themselves to decide how attractive it is and how much other alternatives offered can compete with our products.”

Congress has the constitutional power of the purse, but President Donald Trump’s robust assertion of executive authority is testing even that basic tenet of U.S. democracy.

His administration has already canceled or threatened to cancel billions of dollars of previously approved federal spending and now wants to go after even more funding during the government shutdown.

States, cities, nonprofits and other groups have responded with more than 150 lawsuits accusing the Republican administration of an unlawful power grab.

An Associated Press analysis shows that so far, those suits are mostly succeeding in blocking the Republican president’s spending moves, at least temporarily. But most of the legal battles are far from over, and the Supreme Court, where Trump so far has been more successfulcould have the final word on at least some of them.

The court’s conservative majority has been receptive at least in preliminary rulings to many emergency appeals from the administration. Legal experts say a pair of recent decisions by the court may bode well for the administration’s push to gain more control over government spending. Here’s a look at the current legal score and what could lie ahead:

Courts have mostly ruled against the administration so far

As of early October, court orders were at least temporarily blocking the Trump administration’s decisions in 66 of 152 lawsuits over federal spending, an AP analysis shows. In 37 of those cases, courts had allowed the administration to proceed. In 26 of the cases, a judge had yet to rule on the matter. The remaining 23 had either been dropped or consolidated.

The count reflects decisions by district courts, appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court and will almost certainly change as the cases progress.

The flurry of litigation reflects not only the administration’s aggressive effort to wrest control of spending, but the Republican-controlled Congress’ unwillingness to push back, said Zachary Price, a constitutional law professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco.

“Congress seems to be following its partisan interests more than its institutional interests, and that puts a lot of pressure on courts,” he said.

It’s hard to say how much money the administration has withheld

Government watchdogs say the administration is blatantly ignoring a requirement in the 1974 Impoundment Control Act to report funding freezes to Congress.

Research by Democrats on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees estimated the administration was freezing, canceling or seeking to block a total of $410 billion as of early September. That’s equivalent to about 6% of the federal budget for the year that ended on Sept. 30.

The administration has disputed that number.

Since the shutdown started this month, the administration has targeted even more fundingprimarily in places represented by Democrats.

The Trump administration is taking a page from Nixon

Legal scholars say no president has attempted massive, unilateral cuts like these since Richard Nixon. The moves reflect an expansive view of executive power that is at odds with the Impoundment Control Act, court rulings and the Constitution, which grants Congress supremacy over spending, experts say.

“The power they’ve claimed is the power to delay and withhold funds throughout the year without input from Congress,” said Cerin Lindgrensavage, counsel with Protect Democracy, which is involved in multiple lawsuits against the administration. “That’s a theft of Congress’ power of the purse.”

In a message to Congress earlier this year, the White House said it was “committed to getting America’s fiscal house in order by cutting government spending that is woke, weaponized, and wasteful.”

White House budget director Russ Vought, a proponent of withholding federal funds, has argued presidents long had the power to spend less money than Congress appropriated if they could cut waste or be more efficient, and that power is needed to address the country’s massive debt.

The government shutdown opened up a new opportunity to cut spending, he said this month on “The Charlie Kirk Show.”

“If I can only work on saving money, then I’m going to do everything I can to look for opportunities to downsize in areas where this administration has thought, ‘This is our way towards a balanced budget.’”

The administration has cut entire agencies

The 152 cases the AP identified challenge the closure of government agencies and offices, the cancellation of grants and other assistance and the attachment of new conditions on federal funding.

The administration has used the cuts, or threat of cuts, to try to impose its policies on gender, raceimmigration and other issues.

But it’s not just money on the line. The funds supported jobs, school lunches, health programs, scientific research, infrastructure projects, foreign assistance, disaster preparedness, education initiatives and other programs.

Some notable rulings against the administration include the restoration of funding to 14 states that filed suit over nearly $2 billion withheld for electric car chargers and a block on potentially broad funding cuts to some of the country’s largest cities over their “sanctuary” immigration policies.

Judges have raised constitutional concerns

Judges who have ruled against the administration have often found strong reason to conclude the cuts, or threat of cuts, would violate the Constitution’s separation of powers by usurping Congress’ authority over spending.

They have also ruled the moves were most likely arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

Judges who have sided with the administration have likened at least some of the legal claims before them to contract disputes that belong in a different court: the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

That court, which traces its origins to the mid-1800s, handles lawsuits by citizens seeking money from the federal government. Referred to as “the People’s Court,” it is separate from the district courts that are handling most of the high-profile litigation against the administration.

The Supreme Court has often sided with the White House

The high court’s conservative justices have allowed the administration to move ahead for now with plans to shutter the Education Department, freeze $5 billion in foreign aid and cut hundreds of millions of dollars for teacher training and research supported by the National Institutes of Health.

Those decisions may make it harder to challenge the administration’s spending cuts, though the high court has not yet considered their ultimate legality or overturned lower court rulings.

In the National Institutes of Health case, the high court ruled 5-4 in August that lawsuits over the cancellation of grant funding generally cannot be handled entirely by federal district courts. Instead, plaintiffs must sue in federal claims court for any money and turn to the district courts if they want to challenge the guidance that led to the grant terminations.

The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision is still unfolding, but it could force plaintiffs in the grant funding cases to start over in a new courtroom. In some cases, plaintiffs might have to decide if they want to sue on two fronts.

In the foreign aid case, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision in September suggested the Impoundment Control Act did not give private parties the right to sue over so-called pocket rescissions.

That’s when the president submits a request to Congress not to spend approved money, but does it so late in the fiscal year that Congress doesn’t have time to act and the funds go unspent.

Trump notified House Speaker Mike Johnson in August of a pocket rescission for the $5 billion in congressionally approved foreign aideffectively cutting the budget without going through the legislative branch.

Though the Supreme Court stressed its decision was preliminary, legal experts say it could make it easier for the Trump administration to use the tactic again.

___

Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.

Come Saturday, the 42 million Americans who depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, will be forced to go without benefits due to the ongoing government shutdown.

On Monday’s “Deadline: White House,” Nicolle Wallace placed the blame for the looming lapse entirely on the president and the Republican Party. “It is awful when anyone in America goes hungry, and it is a choice,” she said, “it’s Donald Trump’s choice.”

The BLN host noted this isn’t the first time the administration has slashed food assistance for some of America’s most vulnerable. In March, it cut approximately $500 million in aid for food banks.

“That $300 million that Donald Trump is spending on making a gold ballroom where the East Wing once stood, and the $230 million he’s trying to get us, the American taxpayers, to reimburse him for being under criminal investigation, they add up to roughly the same amount of money he has cut from America’s food banks,” Wallace said.

The BLN host called the split-screen of Trump’s White House renovations and the impending cuts “a deeply disturbing portrait of America,” adding, “the images of Donald Trump destroying —with an actual wrecking ball — the actual East Wing of the White House, while Americans are about to go without food stamps, is a snapshot of America that will live forever.”

Wallace also called out the president for pushing “policies that will hurt the parts of the coalition he used to publicly speak out for.”

“Food insecurity in America is a lot more common than anybody can imagine, and it knows no party affiliation,” she explained. “It does not care who you voted for, and the fact that Trump and all the Republicans in Congress are opting into this tragedy, this sort of shameful thing in America in 2025, should be front-page news all over the place.”

You can watch Wallace’s full analysis in the clip at the top of the page.