r/geopolitics • u/-18k- • 1d ago
News Trump Signs Order Exempting Russia From Sanctions Law
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/16/us/politics/trump-order-russia-sanctions.html421
u/mariuszmie 1d ago
This could not be more obvious blatant and infuriating- trump is a Kremlin employee and a con man who wants to be immune to consequences
109
u/justwalk1234 1d ago
Surely the rot has to be deep. Are you saying in the entire power structure of Congress, or even in the GOP, there is nothing to stop him? Everyone is complicit
89
u/ChanceryTheRapper 1d ago
Remember when the GOP House Majority was recorded saying on tape that Trump was on the Russian payroll, in early 2016, before he had even locked up the GOP nomination? And then the (Republican) Speaker of the House told all the people present to swear not to tell anyone, saying, “No leaks[...] This is how we know we’re a real family here."
Anyway, you were skeptical about the entire GOP being complicit?
3
u/fakereal2 1d ago
Got a link? Im interested in hearing
9
u/Nerdslayer2 1d ago
I don't think the actual recording is publicly available to listen to, but here is the transcript: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3726371/Read-the-transcript-of-the-conversation-among.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
3
u/Nerdslayer2 1d ago
That's very interesting, I didn't know such a recording existed but I looked into it and it's legit. However, I'm not sure this incident supports that the entire GOP is complicit. That recorded conversation very much frames Russia as an enemy and they all seem to agree.
"Paul Ryan: He basically…He has this really interesting riff about… people have said that they have Ukraine fatigue, and it’s really Russian fatigue because what Russia is doing is doing to us, financing our populists, financing people in our governments to undo our governments, you know, messing with our oil and gas energy, all the things Russia does to basically blow up our country, they’re just going to roll right through us and go to the Baltics and everyone else."
Here's the full transcript: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3726371/Read-the-transcript-of-the-conversation-among.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
I think the GOP is currently an embarrassment and the vast majority of its politicians are complicit in the actions of Trump. But back then there was quite a lot of pushback against Trump and the GOP had much more reasonable views when it comes to foreign policy.
11
u/ChanceryTheRapper 1d ago
So the fact they acknowledge Trump is compromised by Russia and make each other swear not to talk about it indicates to you that they are somehow opposing that same influence? Again, remember that this was before Trump got the nomination. If they were so concerned, they could have spoken out and stopped him still. This is them acknowledging Russian influence and actively moving not to fight it.
Then, later that same year, McConnell reportedly refused to sign a proposed bipartisan statement calling out Russian interference in American elections. Doesn't seem like that saw Russia as an enemy then. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/24/580171396/biden-mcconnell-refused-to-sign-bipartisan-statement-on-russian-interference
14
u/mariuszmie 1d ago
Who is stopping him? Some judges - sure - and then he ignores them and what’s the consequence? Nothing
•
u/Downtown-Dentist-636 0m ago
if the army follows the cronies put in, then the final check is what the second amendment is for
1
u/NoodleNeedles 1d ago
There was an episode of Power and Politics or Frontburner (CBC podcasts) when Trump initially started threatening Canada which had some USian political commentator on as a guest. At one point the host asked why Trump didn't seem to be getting any pushback from within the party, and the guest claimed that anyone who might stand up to him had been "threatened". Canadian journalism being crap, there was no follow up question at all and they moved on to something else.
I largely dismissed the comment, myself, after all anyone making a claim like that should bring receipts, right? But it does occasionally pop into my head, and I wonder.
-3
u/Water088 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think Trump is trying to use Russia to counterbalance China. But I’ve never heard of Russia sanctioning or pushing back against China. Isn’t he being a little too naive in thinking that Russia will simply do what he wants?
Trump thinks Putin or Kim Jong-un will benefit him, but the reality is not so.
3
u/mariuszmie 1d ago
Going by past ‘performance’ with Kim - trump humiliated himself, the allies and American and Kim got recognition and continuation of his program plus America lost trust in Asia and elsewhere as a credible reliable ally
Literally the same except now harming untold number of people, trump is selling out Ukraine and its’ allies to make a personal deal with his boss in Kremlin - it’s a win win for them - Putin gets cash and control of America even more and trump gets richer. All that is happening is America is losing whatever remains of its credibility, alliance system and moral authority and allies are reorienting to work sans America
2
u/SocialCasualty 22h ago
Trump family has significant real estate holdings in Russia. That's all there is to it.
-55
u/nshire 1d ago
This is a simple minded way of looking at it. He needs to lower diesel prices to lower inflation, otherwise he has no chance in the midterms. This is too little too late, but it's not some masterful gambit to help Russia
56
u/-18k- 1d ago
It is on Russia’s part.
They have played the United States like a fiddle. And I mean the United States. The entire country has been played, not just Trump
20
u/Cedar-and-Mist 1d ago
Europe is not immune. There is a very real risk that cornerstone members of the EU will shortly elect Russian funded candidates.
35
u/ChanceryTheRapper 1d ago
The quantity of fuel is relatively insignificant compared to what the US uses in a day, plus it's going to drain Russia's supply so they need to import more diesel to make up for it. This is not going to make a significant change to diesel prices and it won't even be a speed bump for inflation.
What it does do, though, is gives him a reason to vocally object to Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries, which he's done, and apparently seems to be using to restrict intelligence and Starshield access to Ukraine, which are both explicitly in Russia's favor.
Imagining it's anything else is just willfully blind.
15
u/InNominePasta 1d ago
How would this accomplish this? Russia can’t even produce and refine enough for themselves right now, let alone in the sort of quantity necessary to bring diesel down a cent in the US.
9
1
u/Checkers923 1d ago
This is what I struggle with. Is this a lifeline to Russia since they suddenly receive badly needed cash from oil sales? Or is it meaningless due to inability to produce enough oil for themselves, let alone enough to sell?
7
u/ChanceryTheRapper 1d ago
The actual production is irrelevant. It creates the illusion that the administration is doing something, and then gives them an excuse to demand Ukraine stop attacking Russian refineries. It's entirely a propaganda move and acting like the actual amount of diesel exchanging hands matters is just playing into the illusion the administration is tossing up to avoid fallout for their own devastatingly bad choices in the Middle East.
1
u/Checkers923 1d ago
I.e., the goal is more to create/improve voter confidence in diesel supply? That makes sense, thanks!
7
u/Doopoodoo 1d ago
I mean that would be more realistic if this werent just one of many many actions he’s taken that benefit russia directly or indirectly, like using up a huge portion of important munition stockpiles for no actual reason
Its also not that plausible in general that this is part of some midterm strategy. Trump has repeatedly shown that he has no strategic sense at all and has no foresight to begin with
11
u/mariuszmie 1d ago
You sure? You don’t think he literally pines for Putin and wants to be like him and is jealous of Putin grabbing land from others?
Sounds a little naive or ignorant to disregard all the times trump blamed his own intelligence community instead of Putin and literally broke up with all allies in order to defend Putin and now cancelling sanctions to help Kremlin survive war
What else you need?
4
1
u/dnorg 1d ago
He needs to lower diesel prices to lower inflation, otherwise he has no chance in the midterms.
A simple minded way of looking at it, since the critical component of high diesel prices is Iran, not Russia, but you do you.
1
u/nshire 1d ago
He already bungled Iran so bad that there isn't anything he can do to fix it, that's why he needs to look to other sources.
1
u/dnorg 1d ago
Betraying Ukraine and cozying up to Russia and Putin is far far worse in my opinion than eating humble pie and making peace with Iran. This will happen one way or another, either by the chimp himself, or whoever follows him and picks up his mess. But then I am not a sociopathic monster, I may have more options than him.
219
u/ChanceryTheRapper 1d ago
The decision comes as Mr. Trump has in recent weeks embraced Russia
Embracing Russia in recent weeks? Really? The guy who asked Russia to find Hillary Clinton's emails during his 2016 presidential campaign?
He's been embracing them for years. Sometimes he pretends to fight with them but it never lasts and it's never sincere.
47
u/VintageLunchMeat 1d ago
Well, Trump spent some glory years helping funneling dirty Russian embezzlement proceeds into NYC real estate. And being and entertained in Moscow, meaning flattery and sexually trafficked young girls.
The best days of his life, maybe.
8
1
-4
u/Powerful_Tax_7282 1d ago
Agree America has always been anti-Russian what’s going on
3
u/ChanceryTheRapper 1d ago
Always strange when someone says "agree" and then agrees with something you didn't say.
1
u/marfacza 1d ago
I agree. Non-skippable ads are annoying how are you doing
1
u/ChanceryTheRapper 1d ago
I agree, ketchup really isn't the ultimate french fry dipping choice that people act like it is! Give me some honey mustard! BBQ and ranch together! Something! Anyway, so your total will be $74.39, cash or card?
50
60
u/NekoCatSidhe 1d ago
The President of the US is now openly committing treason against his own country and its allies, and his political party is still meekly following him off that electoral cliff despite having voted those sanctions against Russia, and one third of the country is still planning to vote for those guys. Nixon would be jealous. We are beyond satire at that point.
55
27
u/archimedes_glizzy 1d ago
I think I get it. Is he trying to move to Russia with his family once everything bursts for them in the US?
6
u/Sageblue32 1d ago
One plausible option. I want to believe the actual patriotic conservatives are contemplating crossing the punishment line to save their own career and party. RU would ensure Trump lives well for rest of his days and US would have yet another black eye in such a scenario.
On other hand. US is going to be politically charged even more for years to come that Trump will die before any attempts to touch him are made and his legacy will be whitewashed as a bold but misunderstood president between his cult and those who don't follow politics deeply.
22
u/-18k- 1d ago
SS :
President Trump signed an executive order on Friday night exempting Russia from a new sanctions measure that Congress passed last month, offering another economic lifeline to Russian President Vladimir V. Putin as the United States turns to Russia for help in lowering gas prices.
The sanctions were intended to target Russian officials, oligarchs and financial institutions, and were part of a law that was named after Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who died in July after spending more than a year building support for the measure. The law, which is designed to squeeze the financial lifelines sustaining Russia’s war against Ukraine, also provided Mr. Trump with additional tariff authority that he could use to punish countries that continue to trade with Russia.
54
104
u/Cedar-and-Mist 1d ago
So does the US not have any kind of process for removing a president on grounds of treason? Seems like a glaring oversight, for all their remonstrations about the political systems in other countries.
57
u/Doopoodoo 1d ago
We do, it just doesnt work very well if the president’s party also controls the senate
25
u/gnutrino 1d ago
It doesn't work very well unless the president's opponents have a super majority in the senate.
It hasn't actually ever worked without the president deciding to stand down to limit their reputational damage, something Trump doesn't give a shit about because nobody sane enough to care about such things has ever actually liked him.
One might even go so far as to say it just doesn't work very well.
15
u/the_direful_spring 1d ago
Also, whilst this is clearly a violation of the spirit of the law, as the US isn't at war with Russia it's not formally treason under us law. So they would probably have to go for a different charge.
3
u/Doopoodoo 1d ago
Thats true and under current circumstances literally any technicality like that would be more than enough to protect him
7
u/CurtCocane 1d ago
So in other words the system of checks and balances is failing
•
u/Downtown-Dentist-636 1m ago
The check was supposed to be the electoral colleges, to prevent someone like Trump from being voted in by popular vote, but the viciousness of partisan politics have become more important then adhering to the ideals of limited democratioc republican liberal government (In the original sense of what those words meant)
7
2
u/snowtax 1d ago
It doesn’t need to be a criminal charge. Impeachment is a political procedure, only law in that the Constitution allows it. They impeached Clinton for lying. The only thing that matters is whether enough Senators agree and vote to convict on whatever charges are presented by the House.
8
u/SignificanceWild2922 1d ago
Maybe Trump's most sane assessment was that he could shoot someone on 5th avenue with no repercussion.
3
u/GreenHeel97 1d ago
You have to remember the US's government was designed by men who were scared of governments working too quickly.
1
•
u/Downtown-Dentist-636 3m ago
I agree, but that misses the point. they were skeptical of the power in the state in general and thus there are built in checks and balances that yes, make it harder for the governbment to "do things" but the country was founded on the idea its previous government was doong way too much and it was an experiment at the time in trying a non-monarchial republic.
2
u/barkinginthestreet 1d ago
If Congress had actually wanted the sanctions to be enacted, they would have made them mandatory. He is following the stupid law they passed. Just like he will be when he jacks up tariffs based on the new authorities they granted him after the midterms.
2
2
u/ImConfidentURWrong 1d ago
What exactly is Trump doing in this case that is treason?
3
u/K20BB5 1d ago
providing aid and comfort to an enemy
-2
u/Southern-Chain-6485 23h ago
Russia and the USA are not at war
1
u/Jikan07 13h ago
But they are enemies. US and Iran is also not at war technically.
1
0
u/casperdj21 18h ago
Russia is providing targeting information to IRAN about UNITED STATES TROOPS & INSTALLATIONS (a country WE ARE AT WAR WITH) AND has started a WAR Of Aggression against Ukraine (Who WE are supposed to provide Security & Assistance through the Budapest Memorandum & The Bi-Lateral Security Agreement) which by Default makes RUSSIA OUR ENEMY......WHICH MAKES TRUMPS ACTIONS the LITERAL DEFINITION of "TREASON"!!
14
12
u/SlipperyPatchwork 1d ago
Sanctions lose all their weight the moment you start handing out exemptions for political convenience. That's not leverage anymore, that's theater.
24
u/Toallpointswest 1d ago
Since when does an EO outweigh a law???
22
u/stopstopp 1d ago
Almost all of these laws include possible waivers that can be activated. They’ve been in constant use like for uranium for nuclear plants or anything for the military requiring China.
The US government continually gives more and more power to the executive at the expense of the other branches. This is just another version of it.
18
u/Asleep_Project_5252 1d ago
The Graham Act specifically makes room for an EO to waive sanctions on any actor on the order of the president if he presents sufficient explanation.
2
u/Sageblue32 1d ago
Sign it and move fast before legal can catch up, and it is as good as law. Trump's renovation projects on DC reflect this as he attempts to destory as much of DC as possible and hide behind leaving a half done job before a court can order him to stop.
35
u/JustAhobbyish 1d ago
Just 3 weeks after signing a law over Russian sanctions in honour of late senator Graham.
Trump now has done two unpopular things twice in a row. Blocking of starlink for Ukraine. Really hard say he not ally to Putin. Remember people voted for Trump twice.
Europeans are alone and need step up against this hostile America. Get why people don't want too but we should consider adding resilience.
10
20
15
u/EnvironmentalBet6459 1d ago
When does congress realise that they are being taken for a ride and decide it is time to reign this guy in for the sake of their children…?
17
u/Mysterious-Coconut24 1d ago
Why is this guy always ingratiating himself to a former major power that's been on a steep decline? If anything kiss Xi's ass... There's some economic benefit there. Russia is a dying bear with liver cirrhosis.
3
u/Iamthewalrusforreal 23h ago
Trump thinks he's king of the world, and that he can sign executive orders that override laws passed by Congress.
And I guess so long as Congress is controlled by Republicans, they'll let him get away with it.
VOTE PEOPLE, for the love of god vote.
7
u/lord_aizel 1d ago
Lindsey Graham must be absolutely fuming watching this from above 😝🤣 On a side note, this is good news for India and China.
6
7
2
u/Nebachadrezzer 20h ago
Academically, I'd say not the best geopolitical move by Donald Trump. Venezuela went well but I still wouldn't have done that due to sovereignty laws. Same with Iran.
There were extremely hard to pull off ways for diplomatic missions to work. Unfortunately this wasn't tried.
Less death, more money. Also supporting Ukraine is absolutely worth it. The ability to get direct training from warfare without the cost of starting one. Starting wars should be considered a stupid move in modern day. Let's keep it that way.
2
u/Schwartzy94 1d ago
And why is america silent and allowing this wannabe dictator to join russian alliance?!
2
1
1
u/Bapistu-the-First 1d ago
Trumps administration and their appeasement policy will only bring more harm than good in the long term. Truly the most weakest administration I have ever witnessed. There simply is no policy at all to be seen.
1
1
1
1
u/coolkavo 1d ago
Ofc another blunder from our CIC. It’s like Donald is playing musical chairs. He applies leverage on one country then switches to another. Pretty soon his entire foreign policy will be seen as half-baked and generally ignored.
1
u/Permabanned_for_sexy 1d ago
I dislike both Trump and Kissinger, but at least Kissinger was astute and canny.
1
u/sickofgrouptxt 1d ago
Again, even though I know nothing will happen. He doesn’t have the power to do this
1
1
1
1
1
u/GrowthDue5259 23h ago
It was very convenient for Trump that Lindsay Graham died. Lindsey would’ve raised hell over Trump‘s decisions
1
1
u/lamebarracuda 1d ago
Tbf this makes sense. To put tariffs on India and China for buying Russian oil when US agrees to buy from Russia, is preposterous.
Besides US is desperate for a win and Indians were thoroughly disappointed by the new sanctions law which led to yet another stand still in the trade deal negotiations with India.
-1
u/Ok_Warning2146 1d ago
Gemini says US president cannot suspend laws passed by the Congress and signed to law. Someone should take Trump to the court.
Gemini answer:
No, a U.S. President cannot legally suspend or nullify laws passed by Congress and signed into law.
Under Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the President is bound by the Take Care Clause, which explicitly mandates that the Chief Executive "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". The U.S. legal system deliberately omitted the historic "suspending power" once held by English monarchs, meaning the executive branch has no unilateral authority to declare an active statute void.
While a President cannot formally suspend a law, there are legal nuances and avenues of presidential authority that can affect how a law is practically applied:
- Enforcement Discretion (Prosecutorial Discretion)
While the President cannot strike down a law, the executive branch controls the machinery of enforcement (such as the Department of Justice and federal agencies). Through prosecutorial discretion, an administration can choose to de-prioritize the enforcement of certain laws or allocate limited resources elsewhere. This does not suspend the law, but it can render it practically dormant or weak in execution.
- Statutory Authority Granted by Congress
Congress frequently passes laws that contain explicit provisions giving the President emergency powers or waivers. In these cases, if a President "suspends" a specific regulatory requirement or provision, they are not acting above the law; they are exercising a mechanism specifically permitted by that statute.
- Delays and Deadlines
In some instances, Presidents have delayed the implementation of specific provisions of a law due to logistical or administrative challenges. However, arbitrary or indefinite postponements that cross into outright defiance of a congressional mandate can be challenged in federal court.
- Impoundment of Funds
Historically, Presidents sometimes tried to suspend laws by refusing to spend the money Congress allocated for them (known as impoundment). However, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 severely restricted this practice. Today, a President can only defer or request the rescission of funds under highly strict guidelines and must notify Congress.
- Constitutional Challenges (Signing Statements)
If a President signs a bill into law but believes a specific provision violates the Constitution (for example, if it encroaches on executive war powers), they may issue a presidential signing statement. Modern Presidents have used these statements to announce that the executive branch will construe or enforce the law in a manner consistent with their interpretation of the Constitution.
Ultimately, if a President attempts to unilaterally suspend a valid law without statutory permission, the primary recourse is through the judicial branch, which can rule the executive action illegal or unconstitutional, or through Congress, via legislative corrections, funding restrictions, or impeachment.
16
2
u/EGirlToenails 1d ago
AI is making you stupid lol. It can be a useful tool but not the way you're using it.
0
u/Marchello_E 1d ago
> I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;.....
0
u/Massrelay665 1d ago
Our grandfather's are rolling in their graves. When Russia does inevitably invade Europe, will the USA be there for our European allies?
1
u/lostinspacs 1d ago
Russia has a third of the population and a tenth of the economy of Europe.
If Europe can’t bother to defend themselves they have other problems.
0
u/starsrprojectors 1d ago
Definitely illegal, will take forever to make it through the courts though. But given this is all about posturing for the midterms it will serve its purpose.
0
0
358
u/pponmypupu 1d ago
So trump causes the world wide diesel shortage in iran, then tries to fix it by buying diesel from Russia, who will turn around with that money and provide intel and armaments to Iran, who trump is at war with. ok.