US Senate bills pressuring Russia advance into uncertain future

WASHINGTON — For the first time in this Congress, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved measures on Wednesday that would hold Russia to account for its war on Ukraine, but the bills’ outlook is murky.

The panel approved all three bills by voice vote.

One of the bills would update a 2024 law that authorizes the president to send roughly $5 billion in frozen Russian assets under U.S. jurisdiction to Ukraine.

Another measure would require sanctions on people or entities from China that aid Russia’s military.

The third bill would require that Russia be declared a state sponsor of terrorism unless it returns to Ukraine all of the Ukrainian children who have been abducted and sent to Russia and elsewhere.

The Ukrainian government estimates that nearly 20,000 children and counting have been kidnapped, the bill states in its findings.

“I think it’s notable that this is the first time in this Congress that Russia-related legislation has been considered before the committee,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the panel’s top Democrat, at the markup. “So it’s a step forward and, given what Putin is doing, I think that it’s past time that Congress take action to rein in Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked war in Ukraine.”

The committee’s approval of the bills is the latest sign that support for helping Ukraine, despite fraying on the edges in recent years, remains strong among majorities of both parties on Capitol Hill.

President Donald Trump, however, has been less stalwart in supporting Ukraine than these lawmakers. Trump has withheld new U.S. financial support for Ukraine. He has sometimes echoed Russian talking points about the war, such as blaming Ukraine for its onset. And he has repeatedly held back from taking decisive action, including legislatively, to exert pressure on Russia.

It remains to be seen whether Trump will work to keep the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s new measures from advancing, as he appears to have done with legislation that would sanction those who buy Russian oil or gas.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., co-chairs the Senate NATO Observer Group alongside Shaheen.

The two senators spoke with reporters after a meeting on Capitol Hill on Wednesday with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

Tillis was asked if he believes the Trump administration will support the bill using Russian assets to help Ukraine and the other Russia-related legislation and if the White House will back European Union efforts to also tap the Russian assets.

“Well, we’re consulting with them,” Tillis said.

The White House, for its part, did not immediately respond to a request to clarify its position on using frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine.

Tillis said the committee action was a significant signal of bipartisan support for a tougher line on Russia, but he added that he does not want to “hamper” Trump’s efforts to negotiate an end to the war.

Shaheen said supporters of the three Russia measures “look forward to getting them to the floor soon.”

Tillis agreed. “They got reported unanimously out of committee, and that’s a good sign,” he said.

Trump and Putin

The legislative activity on Russia occurred against a backdrop of attempts by Trump to negotiate an end to the war that began in 2022 with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Trump has shown a penchant for seemingly giving Putin the benefit of the doubt or at least not provoking the Russian leader while negotiations proceed over Ukraine’s future.

For example, just this month, Trump pulled back from a possible transfer of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine — after having said he was weighing sending them. Trump announced the decision after speaking by phone with Putin.

Trump has not asked Congress for fiscal 2026 funding to pay U.S. defense contractors to build weapons for Ukraine or for new authority to transfer weapons from Pentagon inventories to the front lines.

Trump has said European nations must now assume the full financial burden of aiding Ukraine.

The forthcoming National Defense Strategy, meanwhile, is reportedly going to downplay the relative significance to the U.S. military of defending Europe, in line with the long-held views of the president, vice president and some top Pentagon advisers.

Sanctions stalled

The three Russia-related measures were among a slate of 18 bills and two nominations approved by the committee on Wednesday.

Whether the Senate and House approve the Russia bills — and whether the president implements them if they are enacted — are open questions.

Just last week, Trump convinced Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to renege on a plan to bring to a Senate vote the package of new sanctions on Russia written by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

The Graham-Blumenthal sanctions bill has been stalled for most of this year, and the reason is widely believed to be Trump’s opposition.

It is not even clear to many observers that Trump would fully implement a law authorizing him to repurpose frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine. The president has shown a pattern of flouting congressional will — for example by cutting or repurposing appropriations without lawmakers’ assent. And the president has strong constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy.

A potential new twist arose Wednesday afternoon when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters the administration was about to announce “a substantial pickup in Russia sanctions,” though details were not immediately available.

Europe’s turn

A year ago, the so-called Group of Seven nations announced a collective $50 billion loan to Ukraine, to be repaid with funds generated by some of Russia’s frozen assets held in Belgium.

The United States’s share of that total was $20 billion in U.S. Treasury funds, with the expectation the money will be repaid from interest earned on the Russian sovereign assets in Europe.

However, Bloomberg News reported on Monday that the Trump administration is balking now at a European Union-led plan for G7 nations to expand use of frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine. And Reuters reported Wednesday that Ukraine itself is uneasy with some of the terms of the EU’s developing deal.

When EU leaders meet in Brussels on Thursday, they are expected to decide whether to bless a proposal to design a financial mechanism for transferring frozen Russian assets amounting to about $163 billion.

Critics have warned that seizing the assets could set a dangerous precedent, and some have said the maneuver may not be legal.

Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said at Wednesday’s markup that the action was justified in this unusual case.

“Seizing assets is not and should not be something that any country does lightly,” Risch said. “But the sheer brutality of Russia against the citizens of Ukraine, makes this legally and morally justified to rebuild Ukraine.”

REPO 2.0

The bill on repurposing frozen Russian assets was backed by a bipartisan group of senators, including Risch and Shaheen.

The measure would amend in several ways the 2024 Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act, known as the REPO for Ukrainians Act.

The bill would authorize the U.S. president to transfer Russian sovereign assets under U.S. jurisdiction, without confiscating them, into the Ukraine Support Fund, the creation of which was required by the 2024 REPO law.

Some $5 billion of an estimated $300 billion in frozen Russian assets remain under U.S. jurisdiction, Risch has said.

The bill would require the Treasury secretary to invest the funds in interest-bearing accounts.

The bill would authorize the State Department to obligate a minimum of $250 million for Ukraine every 90 days, except when there is less than $250 million available, in which case the smaller total may be obligated.

The committee defeated by voice vote an amendment by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, that would call for the European Union to take the lead in repossessing frozen Russian assets.

Shaheen opposed Lee’s amendment and said: “We are moving forward with the EU, not following the EU.”

Risch also opposed the amendment, saying: “I don’t want the president’s hands to be tied.”

Terrorism and kidnapping

As for the bill setting up a process to potentially name Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, it would require the secretary of State, within 60 days of enactment, to submit a report to Congress that certifies whether the Ukrainian children who were kidnapped, deported or forcibly removed from Ukrainian territory or temporarily occupied Ukrainian territory since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 have been reunited with their families or guardians in a secure environment and that the process of reintegration for these children is underway.

If the secretary cannot certify that these actions have taken place, then the bill would require the secretary to immediately designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism.

The measure targeting China’s support for Russia’s military would direct the president, within 90 days of the bill’s enactment, to impose sanctions on Chinese individuals and entities that knowingly provide goods or services for use by the Russian military or defense industry.

The bill would also direct the president to impose sanctions on several Chinese defense companies that sell weapons to Russia.

_____

Caroline Coudriet, Hunter Savery and Mark Satter contributed to this report.

_____