Congress Can Agree On One Thing: When It Comes to Russia, Trump Cannot Be Trusted

A bill blocking White House power to ease Russia sanctions heads to the president’s desk.

Mikhail Klimentyev/Planet Pix/Zumapress

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

Update: Following the Senateā€™s passage of a bill toughening sanctions against Russia, the Kremlin swiftly retaliated by seizing two properties used by US diplomats and ordering the reduction of US embassy staff by September 1.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress have finally found something to agree on: tying Trump’s hands when it comes to Russia.

On Thursday night, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill, by a 98-2 vote, that imposes new sanctions on Russia and gives Congress the power to block future efforts by the president to ease sanctions. The bill passed the House 419-3 earlier this week. 

The swift and nearly unanimous passage of this bill is a stinging rebuke to President Trump, who has shown interest in scaling back sanctions on Russia and sought to block passage of the measure. White House aides have offered conflicting messages about whether Trump will sign the bill: “He may sign the sanctions exactly the way they are, or he may veto the sanctions and negotiate an even tougher deal against the Russians,” Anthony Scaramucci, the new White House communications director, said on CNN. But just a few days earlier, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that “the administration is supportive of being tough on Russia…We support where the legislation is now.”

Even if Trump were to veto the measure, members of Congress are saying the President canā€™t stop it. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the panel, said they were certain Congress would override a veto if necessary. Sen. Corker told Mother Jones Wednesday that he does not take Trumpā€™s threats to veto the measure seriously since a veto override would almost certainly follow.

ā€œSelf-flagellation is not something worth engaging in,ā€ Corker said.

Other Democrats echoed the sentiment: Sen. Mark Warner, (D-Va.) the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement that Trump should sign the legislation “as soon as it hits his desk. Otherwise, he risks encouraging Russia’s interference in future elections.”

If the bill becomes law, the US risks a number of serious retaliatory measures from the Kremlin. 

At a Thursday press conference, Russian president Vladimir Putin made his intentions known. “We are behaving in a very restrained and patient way, but at some moment we will need to respond,” he said. “Itā€™s impossible to endlessly tolerate this kind of insolence towards our country.” Meanwhile, Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the foreign relations committee in the upper house of Russian parliament, took to Facebook on Wednesday to call for a response from Russia that would be “painful for Americans.”

A Thursday report in Kommersant, a major Russian newspaper, offered some additional details about a potential Kremlin response. Kommersant cited two unnamed sources inside Russia’s foreign ministry who said that Moscow is considering expelling 35 American diplomats from the countryā€”mirroring the Obama administration’s decision to expel 35 Russian diplomats in December 2016 as punishment for Russia’s interference in the US election. 

Other potential retaliation, according to Kommersant, includes reducing the number of American staff allowed to work at the US embassy in Moscow, voting against the US on the UN Security Council (particularly on North Korea-related issues), seizing assets of US companies operating in Russia, and placing restrictions on the operations of major US companies, from Coca-Cola to Google. 

“This is certainly the Russian side signaling that prospects for improved relations are now bleak,” Matthew Rogansky, who studies Russian foreign policy at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, tells Mother Jones. While the Russians say they put off tit-for-tat retaliation for December 2016 sanctions imposed by the Obama administration to give Trump time try to improve relations, the new Kremlin measures appear to include that deferred response, Rogansky said. “This may be the Russian side saying, in effect, ‘enough is enough,'” he said.

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 canā€™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 wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”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 canā€™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 wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”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