Graham: Senate will move ‘soon' on Russia, China sanctions
'President @realDonaldTrump is spot on about the games Putin is playing,' Graham said in a Tuesday post on X. 'The Senate will move soon on a tough sanctions bill – not only against Russia – but also against countries like China and India that buy Russian energy products that finance Putin's war machine. The Senate bill has a presidential waiver to give President Trump maximum leverage.'
'When it comes to Putin and those who support his war machine, it is time to change the game,' added the South Carolina Republican, a prominent supporter of Ukraine in the Senate.
Graham renewed his push for the sanctions bill, a measure that has more than 80 co-sponsors in the Senate, as President Trump has continued to express his frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
'That is a war that it should have never happened. A lot of people are dying and it should end. We get a lot of bull**** thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless,' Trump told reporters at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday.
Trump confirmed, when asked by a reporter on Tuesday, that he is 'looking at' Graham's sanctions bill.
The measure would impose a 500 percent tariff on imports from any nation that purchases Russian uranium, gas and oil. Graham has been in constant contact with Trump about the bill and lawmakers in the upper chamber are waiting for the president's approval to bring it to the floor.
Graham is proposing a carveout to his bill to spare countries who still import Russian gas, but have supported Ukraine in their three-year war with the Kremlin's military.
'A lot of countries still buy Russian oil and gas but less. Some European countries still have relationships with Russia, but they've been very helpful to Ukraine. So I want to carve them out,' Graham told reporters last month.
'There's some of our allies who've really helped Ukraine but would be affected by the bill, they've earned their way to get a carveout,' the senator added. 'Those who have helped Ukraine, meaningfully, will get a carveout. In other words you'll incentivize people to help Ukraine.'
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters on Tuesday that 'we'll have more to say about that later this week' when talking about Graham's measure and added that there is a 'lot of interest' in moving the bill forward.
The Pentagon is expected to resume sending some defensive weapons to Ukraine, marking a reversal after the shipments were halted last week amid concerns of U.S. stockpiles running low.
Trump said on Monday that the U.S. needs to supply Ukraine with weapons so that the war-torn country can defend itself from the Russian military's attacks.
'Defensive weapons, primarily, but they're getting hit very, very hard. So many people are dying in that mess. We're going to send some more weapons,' the president told reporters.
The Defense Department confirmed the move Monday night, adding that the review of U.S. munitions will continue.
Trump expressed disappointment with Putin after speaking with the Russian leader on Thursday, saying that the Kremlin head is not 'looking to stop' and that he made 'no progress' in forging a potential ceasefire agreement between Moscow and Kyiv.
Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday. Ukraine's leader said the two presidents had a 'very important and fruitful' conversation.
The two leaders spoke about the Russian attacks and agreed that 'we will work together to strengthen protection of our skies.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
31 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
New Hampshire judge to hear arguments on class action against Trump's birthright citizenship order
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A federal judge in New Hampshire will hear arguments Thursday on whether to certify a class-action lawsuit that would include every baby affected by President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their infants, is among numerous cases challenging Trump's January order denying citizenship to those born to parents living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others, the plaintiffs are seeking to have their case certified as a class action and to block implementation of the order while litigation continues. 'Tens of thousands of babies and their parents may be exposed to the order's myriad harms in just weeks and need an injunction now,' lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in court documents filed Tuesday. At issue is the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which states: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' The Trump administration says the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally, ending what has been seen as an intrinsic part of U.S. law for more than a century. 'Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country's sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,' government lawyers wrote in the New Hampshire case. 'The Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to … the children of those who have circumvented (or outright defied) federal immigration laws.' Legal battles continue in multiple states Several federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions stopping Trump's order from taking effect, but the U.S. Supreme Court limited those injunctions in a June 27 ruling that gave lower courts 30 days to act. With that time frame in mind, opponents of the change quickly returned to court to try to block it. New Jersey and the more than dozen states joining its case in Massachusetts federal court have asked the judge to determine if the nationwide injunction in their case could still apply under the high court's ruling. The judge has scheduled a hearing for July 18. 'Everybody knows there's a 30-day clock, so our hope is that we get an answer prior to the end of the 30-day clock,' New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin told The Associated Press in a recent interview. In a Washington state case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges have asked the parties to write briefs explaining the effect of the Supreme Court's ruling. Washington and the other states in that lawsuit have asked the appeals court to return the case to the lower court judge. As in New Hampshire, the plaintiff in a Maryland seeks to organize a class-action lawsuit that includes every person who would be affected by the order. The judge set a Wednesday deadline for written legal arguments as she considers the request for another nationwide injunction from CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization. Ama Frimpong, legal director at CASA, said the group has been stressing to its members and clients that it is not time to panic. 'No one has to move states right this instant,' she said. 'There's different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day.' New Hampshire plaintiffs include parents, babies The New Hampshire plaintiffs, referred to only by pseudonyms, include a woman from Honduras who has a pending asylum application and is due to give birth to her fourth child in October. She told the court the family came to the U.S. after being targeted by gangs. 'I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,' she wrote. 'I fear our family could be at risk of separation.' Another plaintiff, a man from Brazil, has lived with his wife in Florida for five years. Their first child was born in March, and they are in the process of applying for lawful permanent status based on family ties — his wife's father is a U.S. citizen. 'My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,' he wrote. ___ Catalini reported from Trenton, New Jersey.
Wall Street Journal
32 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Brazil Won't Take Orders From Trump, President Says
MANAUS, Brazil—Relations between the U.S. and Brazil descended into crisis after President Trump sought to halt criminal proceedings against his right-wing ally in the country, former leader Jair Bolsonaro, by imposing steep tariffs on Latin America's biggest nation. The U.S. will charge a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods starting Aug. 1, Trump told Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Wednesday, citing legal action against Bolsonaro as part of his reasoning.
Boston Globe
33 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
New Hampshire judge to hear arguments on class action against Trump's birthright citizenship order
Advertisement At issue is the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which states: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' The Trump administration says the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally, ending what has been seen as an intrinsic part of U.S. law for more than a century. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country's sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,' government lawyers wrote in the New Hampshire case. 'The Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to … the children of those who have circumvented (or outright defied) federal immigration laws.' Advertisement Legal battles continue in multiple states Several federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions stopping Trump's order from taking effect, but the U.S. Supreme Court limited those injunctions in a June 27 ruling that gave lower courts 30 days to act. With that time frame in mind, opponents of the change quickly returned to court to try to block it. New Jersey and the more than dozen states joining its case in Massachusetts federal court have asked the judge to determine if the nationwide injunction in their case could still apply under the high court's ruling. The judge has scheduled a hearing for July 18. 'Everybody knows there's a 30-day clock, so our hope is that we get an answer prior to the end of the 30-day clock,' New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin told The Associated Press in a recent interview. In a Washington state case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges have asked the parties to write briefs explaining the effect of the Supreme Court's ruling. Washington and the other states in that lawsuit have asked the appeals court to return the case to the lower court judge. As in New Hampshire, the plaintiff in a Maryland seeks to organize a class-action lawsuit that includes every person who would be affected by the order. The judge set a Wednesday deadline for written legal arguments as she considers the request for another nationwide injunction from CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization. Ama Frimpong, legal director at CASA, said the group has been stressing to its members and clients that it is not time to panic. 'No one has to move states right this instant,' she said. 'There's different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day.' Advertisement New Hampshire plaintiffs include parents, babies The New Hampshire plaintiffs, referred to only by pseudonyms, include a woman from Honduras who has a pending asylum application and is due to give birth to her fourth child in October. She told the court the family came to the U.S. after being targeted by gangs. 'I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,' she wrote. 'I fear our family could be at risk of separation.' Another plaintiff, a man from Brazil, has lived with his wife in Florida for five years. Their first child was born in March, and they are in the process of applying for lawful permanent status based on family ties — his wife's father is a U.S. citizen. 'My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,' he wrote. Catalini reported from Trenton, New Jersey.
