President Donald Trump’s decision to delay new penalties against Russia has exposed a growing divide between the White House and lawmakers who want Washington to maintain economic pressure on Moscow.

An executive order issued Friday allows the administration to hold off on sanctions authorized by the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026. Trump signed the legislation in September, but now says suspending certain provisions serves American interests.

The decision comes as the administration pursues diplomatic initiatives involving Russia and Ukraine, while criticism of Trump’s handling of relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin is intensifying ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Ukraine Calls for Stronger Enforcement

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky responded Saturday by emphasizing the importance of putting the sanctions legislation into effect. His comments came as Russian forces continued striking Ukrainian energy facilities.

“This Act could have helped enormously – and still can! But it needs to actually work, and every voice in support of it matters,” he wrote on X.

Oil Trade and International Pressure at the Center of Dispute

The legislation provides for penalties against Russia and certain foreign parties doing business with it, including companies and countries purchasing Russian oil. Its secondary sanctions could affect major trading partners such as China and India.

Trump’s waiver avoids immediately applying those additional measures. It also follows his recent decision to permit Russian diesel sales to overseas markets, which has already provoked opposition across party lines.

Other developments have added to concerns about the administration’s approach, including questions surrounding Ukraine’s access to Starlink communications technology and Trump’s public dismissal of claims that Russia was assisting Iran in its war.

Congressional Critics Challenge Trump

Several prominent Democrats accused the president of undermining Ukraine and giving Moscow economic breathing room.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote: “By giving the Russian economy life support, Trump’s deal with the devil keeps getting dirtier,”

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) argued that the waiver conflicts with Congress’s objective in approving penalties over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He wrote: “Trump’s latest surrender to Putin again betrays our Ukrainian partners and defies clear congressional intent of legislation designed to punish Russia for its illegal war of aggression,”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) questioned the administration’s stated justification, saying: “These waivers have nothing to do with our national security, & everything to do with sucking up to Vladimir Putin. I hope my Republican colleagues will join me in condemning this craven, cowardly action,”

The objections were not limited to Democrats. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) pointed to the legislation’s 86-11 Senate vote as evidence of strong congressional support for enforcement.

“Beyond irresponsible. What part of enforcing a law passed 86-11 by the Senate does the President and his advisors not understand?” he posted on X.

Tillis added: “It’s unconscionable that this administration is capitulating to a Russian dictator who illegally invaded Ukraine and butchers innocent civilians every single day.”

Republican Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) also criticized the move, writing: “Lindsey would be appalled.”

White House Defends Diplomatic Strategy

The administration says applying the sanctions now could interfere with negotiations intended to end the war.

“Enforcing the sanctions provisions now would impede ongoing U.S. efforts to negotiate a durable and comprehensive peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia,” White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said.

Trump’s order relies on a provision allowing the president to waive certain sanctions requirements. In the document, he formally justified the suspension on national-interest grounds.

A Political and Diplomatic Test

The dispute highlights competing approaches to dealing with Moscow. Critics argue that relaxing economic restrictions risks strengthening Russia’s position while its war against Ukraine continues. The White House, meanwhile, maintains that flexibility over sanctions is necessary to pursue a lasting settlement.

The controversy also places Republican candidates in a difficult position as they campaign for the midterms, particularly as lawmakers from their own party question the president’s recent decisions.

The central question now is whether Washington’s softer approach will create opportunities for a peace agreement or weaken the leverage that Congress intended the sanctions to provide.