Congress

Trump is interested in new Russia sanctions. But there’s a catch.

Published

1 year ago

July 9, 2025

President Donald Trump is ready to sign a punishing Russia sanctions bill that GOP hawks have pushed for months. But only if it changes to give him more control.

A senior administration official granted anonymity to discuss the president’s view said that “conceptually there’s an openness” to the bill from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), but the person suggested that the legislation needs to preserve what the White House sees as the president’s sole authority to oversee U.S. foreign policy.

The current draft of the bill allows the president to waive a 500 percent tariff on countries that buy Russian oil and uranium for up to 180 days, and Graham said Tuesday he has agreed to revise the bill to allow for a second waiver, subject to congressional oversight.

The administration’s desired changes would solidify the president’s waiver authority, ensuring that Congress has no power to question Trump should he decide to end the sanctions.

“The current version would subject the president’s foreign policy decisions to micromanagement by Congress through a joint resolution of disapproval process. … That’s a nonstarter for us,” said the official. “The administration is not going to be micromanaged by the Congress on the president’s foreign policy. The bill needs a waiver authority that is complete.”

Trump’s new willingness to engage with Congress on a sanctions bill underscores his growing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who he says has rebuffed efforts to negotiate an end to the bloodshed in Ukraine.

“For the president now, he has invested his own reputation of being able to negotiate anything anywhere, and Putin has made him look foolish,” said one Republican operative close to the White House.

Trump said Tuesday that Putin was throwing “a lot of bullshit” at him and that he was “looking very strongly” at the sanctions bill. On Wednesday, Speaker Mike Johnson threw his support behind the sanctions push.

“Vladimir Putin has shown an unwillingness to be reasonable and to talk seriously about brokering a peace, and I think we have to send him a message,” he said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has been more circumspect, citing both “substantial progress” in working with the White House on the bill but also making clear his desire to get Trump fully onboard. He said in a floor speech Wednesday it was possible the measure could come to the Senate floor this month but offered no guarantee.

But the president’s comments, emphasizing that any additional Russia sanctions would be “at my option,” underlined what aides said is a top priority: maintaining maximum flexibility and total control over U.S. policy toward the Kremlin.

Two people granted anonymity to describe private discussions on Capitol Hill acknowledged that while the White House might broadly be supportive of the sanctions bill, they hadn’t yet reached an agreement with lawmakers on the scope of the waiver authority.

Thune acknowledged in a brief interview that the waiver language remains subject to negotiation.

“We’re still working with them,” he said, adding that they were “trying” to get everyone on the same page.

The White House, asked for comment on the state of play, pointed to Trump’s remarks.

So far, the GOP-controlled Congress has been remarkably pliant in the face of Trump’s pressure, delivering the president’s massive tax and spending package last week and backing the White House’s actions on trade, immigration and war powers — all areas where Congress has constitutionally granted authority.

Given that pattern, the administration expects lawmakers will craft the Russia sanctions bill in a way that satisfies Trump, even if that means giving up their role administering its provisions. That’s a shift from Trump’s first term, when a broad sanctions bill targeting Russia included language creating a former congressional review process.

Aside from his desire to curtail Congress’ ability to check him on foreign policy matters, Trump’s insistence on flexibility has just as much to do with keeping the door open for a potential breakthrough with Putin, according to the two White House officials.

Graham reiterated Wednesday that he believes Trump is on board with his legislation, saying that the president “wants a waiver, he’s got a waiver. He’s in control of how you implement the sanctions.”

“He told me he thought it would be helpful,” Graham said about his conversations with Trump about the bill. “We want to be a team. We want to help the president. This is an effort to give the president leverage he doesn’t have today.”

Even with the bill’s broad and bipartisan backing in the Senate — with more than 80 co-sponsors, it could theoretically survive a Trump veto — many Republicans are loath to take it up until there’s a clear and unequivocal statement of support from the president.

“The desire to move up here is real, but the risk is moving a bill that the president ultimately decides he doesn’t want,” said one GOP Hill official granted anonymity to discuss the private deliberations.

While Republicans are tentatively eyeing the week of July 21 to put the bill on the floor, some GOP lawmakers have been privately skeptical of Graham’s claims this week that everyone is on the same page. They want to hear Trump say it himself.

That’s particularly true for a handful of lawmakers in the “America First” faction of the GOP who have typically been at odds with Graham’s more traditional hawkish stances. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), for instance, said he would be calling Trump this week to hear his thoughts on the bill directly.

“I know Lindsey has said now he’s in favor of it … [but] I just want to get clued into what his thinking on it,” Hawley said. “I just prefer to hear it from him.”

Said another GOP senator who was granted anonymity to speak candidly, “If the president’s in favor of sanctions, then I’m in favor of sanctions, but I defer to the president.”

“He’s the one in the middle of all the negotiations,” the senator continued. “He’s frustrated with Putin today. He’s been frustrated with [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy before. And he’s the only leader in the world that can bring both sides together.”

Connor O’Brien contributed to this report.

Congress

Top House Judiciary Democrat escalates scrutiny of Paramount merger in new letter

Published

15 minutes ago

August 12, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

House Democrats are ramping up their scrutiny of Paramount Skydance’s bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery — and previewing their plans to crack down on the merger if they win the majority next year.

In a new letter Wednesday, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland — the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee — invited Paramount CEO David Ellison to appear for a transcribed interview “to tell Congress and America your story and answer the Committee’s questions about your Donald Trump-enabled shopping spree to consolidate news organizations, movie studios, cable channels and streaming services.”

As a member of the minority party, Raskin has no power to force Ellison’s cooperation. A spokesperson for committee Republicans did not immediately return a request for comment about whether they were also interested in hearing from Ellison.

But should Democrats win back control of the House in the midterms, Raskin is expected to become the committee chair, and he would at that time have the power to exercise subpoena authority to compel Ellison’s testimony.

Raskin previewed his plans to ramp up oversight of the Paramount merger earlier this week, telling Blue Light News that the investigation is a “priority” and that “anyone involved should be prepared to answer under oath for their role in this brazen campaign to bend America’s free press to Donald Trump’s political, financial and personal will.”

A spokesperson for Paramount did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but Paramount Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim, during a California policy summit Tuesday hosted by Blue Light News, said the company has been “transparent” and responsive to lawmaker’s concerns.

In his letter Wednesday, however, Raskin said that Ellison has not responded to four letters Judiciary Democrats have sent over the past year seeking clarity on the proposed $110 billion merger, which has sparked opposition from Democrats worried about antitrust violations, corruption and national security implications.

“The House Committee on the Judiciary is committed to scrutinizing how the antitrust laws are being enforced to promote the public interest; how market power abuses may be harming not only competition but consumers, workers, and the public generally; and whether the federal antitrust agencies are successfully promoting free competition and innovation — or whether they are using their governmental powers to distort the market and undermine freedom of speech and freedom of the press, in violation of the First Amendment,” Raskin wrote.

Congress

NRSC pushes Republicans to endorse Darline Graham

Published

15 minutes ago

August 12, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The National Republican Senatorial Committee is officially throwing its support behind Sen. Darline Graham ahead of the primary runoff — and it wants other South Carolina Republicans to follow.

On Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, NRSC officials called the primary’s top finishers who didn’t make the runoff in South Carolina’s snap Senate primary — Rep. Russell Fry (R-S.C.), former Gov. Mark Sanford and businessman Mark Lynch — and urged them to endorse Sen. Darline Graham, according to two people with knowledge of the outreach, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.

On Wednesday morning, NRSC Chair Tim Scott — South Carolina’s senior senator — publicly threw his support behind Graham, who secured a first place finish in Tuesday’s primary with early support from President Donald Trump.

“I voted for Darline in yesterday’s primary, and I’ll vote for her again in the runoff,” Scott said in a post on social media. “I’m proud to endorse Darline Graham for the U.S. Senate, and I encourage South Carolina Republicans across our state to join me in voting for her in the runoff.”

Scott hadn’t publicly endorsed Graham before Wednesday, though he told Blue Light News earlier this month that Graham “will win” the race.

“If I were going to endorse in the South Carolina GOP Senate primary, I wanted to do so with confidence,” he said in his Wednesday morning post. “After watching Darline Graham in the Senate and on the campaign trail, I’m confident she’s the real deal.”

Key to both Graham and Norman’s paths to victory in the two-week runoff sprint will be how quickly they can consolidate their former opponents’ support behind them. A similar push to secure backing from ex-rivals proved decisive for Attorney General Alan Wilson in his governor’s primary runoff win over Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette earlier this summer.

In a statement conceding the race on Tuesday night, Fry congratulated Graham and Norman but did not throw his support behind either candidate. Sanford similarly declined to endorse in an interview with a local television station, but left the possibility on the table.

Noel Fritsch, a spokesperson for Lynch, who also ran against then-Sen. Lindsey Graham, said that the Upstate businessman had already thrown his support behind Norman because the House Republican is “the only one capable of or interested in draining the swamp.”

Spokespeople for Norman, Graham and Fry did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the NRSC’s outreach, nor did Sanford respond.

Asked for comment, an NRSC spokesperson pointed to Scott’s social media post.

Congress

Capitol agenda: GOP mum on returning Miller’s campaign cash

Published

4 hours ago

August 12, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Max Miller gave more than $70,000 in campaign cash to over a dozen congressional Republicans in the cycle’s most competitive races.

So far, most of those members aren’t saying whether or not they will return it.

The Dependable Conservative Leadership PAC kicked money to 16 vulnerable GOP candidates for Congress, according to FEC filings. The PAC is aligned with Miller, who has continued his reelection bid while denying allegations of domestic abuse.

The donations put these members in a politically delicate position as they have welcomed the cash in their fights to hold onto their seats this November — and help the party protect its fragile majorities in both chambers.

Spokespeople in the congressional and campaign offices for 13 of the 16 candidates who took the Miller-aligned money did not respond to requests for comment on if they planned to return the funding.

Only the campaign for Rep. Brad Finstad said it had already returned its contribution.

Meanwhile, a campaign spokesperson for Rep. Mike Lawler said the incumbent Republican had no plans to relinquish the money. He instead slammed Democratic challenger Cait Conley for attending a fundraiser hosted by former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who resigned in 2008 after allegations of involvement in a prostitution ring.

And Derrick Van Orden, asked Tuesday night about the contribution he received from Miller during about an interview about the results of his state’s primary elections, refused to discuss the matter, calling the accusations against Miller “allegations” he had heard about “the day before yesterday.”

The recipients of Miller’s campaign cash who didn’t respond to inquiries include: Reps. Rob Bresnahan, Ryan Mackenzie, Brian Fitzpatrick, Zach Nunn, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Nick Begich III, Tom Barrett, Juan Ciscomani, Gabe Evans, Tom Kean Jr., Jen Kiggans, and David Valadao.

Sen. Jon Husted is also staying quiet about whether he’ll return the cash. He previously said Miller should not run for reelection after Emily Miller — Max Miller’s ex-wife and Ohio GOP Sen. Bernie Moreno‘s daughter — accused her former husband of assaulting herself and their young child.

Democrats are already seizing on the matter, with a campaign spokesperson for Mackenzie’s opponent, Bob Brooks, saying in a statement the GOP incumbent is “open for business for whoever’s willing to pay up, no questions asked.”

Mike Marinella, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Tuesday Democrats are “shameless hypocrites who conveniently look the other way when their vulnerable members are bankrolled by scandal-plagued Democrats like [former Rep.] Eric Swalwell.”

The NRCC also claimed that some of the Democrats who said they’d give away Swalwell campaign contributions have, in fact, not returned the money as promised.

Unlike Miller, Swalwell resigned in April and ended his gubernatorial bid in California amid intense pressure from inside his own party over sexual assault allegations he denies.

What else we’re watching:

— NANCY PELOSI CORRECTS THE RECORD ON BIDEN: For the first time, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi disclosed what she told President Joe Biden before he withdrew his 2024 presidential reelection bid. “I only said to President Biden, ‘I’ve come to question the polling that you have and how your campaign is being conducted. I think there has to be a better campaign to win the White House,’” she shared Tuesday. Pelosi’s comments — shared on stage with Jonathan Martin at Blue Light News’s The California Agenda: Sacramento Summit — shed new light on the scramble that led to Biden dropping his campaign. But she pushed back on the narrative that she puppeteered the president’s withdrawal. She added she advised Biden to hear from outside pollsters and told him, “I think the public would like to hear that you’ve had testing that demonstrates that you can serve.”

— JEFFRIES VAGUE ON IMMIGRATION AGENDA: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries Tuesday said Democrats are “committed to an accountability agenda” on immigration should they take the majority. But the New Yorker offered few specifics on what immigration policies a future House Democratic majority might pursue. “We’ll have a conversation about what dramatic change looks like” after November, Jeffries said, adding that what “unites the entirety of the House Democratic caucus family” is that “immigration enforcement should be fair, just and humane in this country.”

Riley Rogerson and Joey Fox contributed to this report.