Public Comment

The Senate advanced a Russia sanctions bill by an 86–12 vote on July 28, 2026. Along with sanctions on Russian officials and institutions, the bill would authorize tariffs of up to 100% on goods from major countries that continue buying Russian oil, gas, uranium, or other energy products. Supporters argue that secondary tariffs could reduce the revenue supporting Russia’s war. Critics warn they could raise U.S. import costs, damage relations with major trading partners, and delegate unusually broad tariff power to the president. A secondary tariff targets another country’s trade with the United States because of that country’s transactions with a sanctioned country. Sanctions are meaningful only when they change behavior, but a tariff aimed at Russia can still land on American buyers and allies. Congress should define the target, escalation path, and off-ramp before granting broad authority.

How much economic risk should the United States accept to pressure Russia’s trading partners?

Overall results

1
59% support · excluded by 2%
7

Broad tariffs can disrupt American factories that depend on imported components, while targeted enforcement can preserve domestic jobs and supply chains.

7

Coordinated restrictions on financing, insurance, shipping, and high-value technology can raise Russia’s costs without taxing every product imported from a major trading partner.

2
54% support · excluded by 7%
7

Country-specific waivers can protect alliances and prevent the policy from punishing partners making measurable progress under difficult energy conditions.

7

A predictable escalation schedule gives governments and companies time to replace Russian supply while preserving a credible penalty for refusing to change.

3
46% support · excluded by 2%
7

American consumers should not pay higher prices because Washington is trying to control energy purchases made by governments on the other side of the world.

4
41% support · excluded by 7%

About the author