House Democrats Want Answers on Admin’s Decision to Lift Sanctions on Deripaska Companies

They are expected to question Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin over the decision on Thursday.

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin testifying before the Senate Finance Committee on February 14Ting Shen/Xinhua/ZUMA Wire

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

House Democrats are demanding answers from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on why his agency removed companies owned by Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska from its list of sanctioned companies last month. Deripaska, who is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, made his fortune through his control of Russian energy and aluminum companies, several of which were placed under strict sanctions by the US Treasury Department in April 2018. At the time, Mnuchin said that the sanctions—which also hit six other Russian oligarchs—were in response to the Russian government’s involvement with “malign activity” around the world and the reality that oligarchs “profit from this corrupt system.”

In December, Treasury announced it was planning to lift the sanctions on Deripaska’s companies on January 19, after Deripaska agreed to divest large portions of the three companies he owns—En+ Group LLC, a large mining and energy conglomerate; UC Rusal PLC, one of the largest aluminum mining companies in the world; and JSC EuroSibEnergo, Russia’s largest private power company. The Democratic chairmen of five House committees sent a letter to Mnuchin on Tuesday asking him to meet with them to explain the decision to remove the sanctions.

While Deripaska has indeed agreed to give up control of portions of his companies, the Democrats pointed out he will retain significant ownership of them—for example, he will reduce his stake in En+ from 70 to 44.95 percent. The letter from Democrats also noted that Deripaska is transferring the shares of his sanctioned companies to VTB Bank, which is majority-owned by the Russian government and also sanctioned by the US government. Sanctions experts, however, say that VTB is on a different sanctions list than Deripaska’s companies. Under the sanctions targeting the Russian oligarch, Americans were prohibited from doing business with his firms, says Peter Harrell, who worked on sanctions at the State Department during the Obama administration. VTB Bank, on the other hand, Harrell says, is on a list which limits its access to capital and loans, but doesn’t bar Americans from doing business with the bank.

Mnuchin will provide a classified briefing to lawmakers Thursday on the decision, according to Politico.

Under the law, Congress has 30 days from the announcement of the sanctions delisting to counter the move. Harrell says that to block the decision, both houses of Congress would have to pass resolutions opposing the delisting—and by majorities that can survive a potential Trump veto. By giving the 30-day notice of delisting on December 19, just days before the end of the last Congress, the administration made it harder for congressional opposition to organize, Harrell says.

“It’s going to be a challenge, particularly in the Senate, where it’s not even clear to me that Mitch McConnell would be willing to hold a vote on such a thing,” he says.

In their letter, Democratic lawmakers asked Mnuchin to extend the amount of time Congress has to consider the issue.

Deripaska has come under scrutiny in connection with the Trump-Russia scandal. The Associated Press has reported that in 2005, Paul Manafort signed a $10 million deal to lobby for Deripaska. Deripaska subsequently sued Manafort for allegedly absconding with a $19 million investment. During the presidential campaign, Manafort offered, through an intermediary, to provide Deripaska with private briefings on the presidential campaign in an apparent effort to repay his multimillion-dollar debt to the Russian magnate.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate