Trump's Graham Act waiver is only a 60-day pause

A sanctions law that passed the Senate 86-11 and was signed in September was set aside by executive order before it took effect. The administration says the move protects peace talks and buys time to study the economic impact. Critics in both parties say it rewards Moscow. The narrow question on trial is whether the waiver is really a time-limited pause.

Key claims

• Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Oct 17: "The president wants to take the 60-day period of time to sort of analyse what imposing both sanctions and tariffs will mean to the global economy and even to the US economy."
• White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers: "Enforcing the sanctions provisions now would impede ongoing U.S. efforts to negotiate a durable and comprehensive peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia."
• Razom for Ukraine's Mykola Murskyj: "Shockingly, these waivers don't even have an expiration date."
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called the decision a "gift" for Putin and said it "rewards" him.
• Critics including Senator Thom Tillis link the waiver to fuel prices before the November midterms. The administration frames it around peace talks and the global economy.

What the evidence says so far

The executive order, published by the White House, waives the duties in sections 112 and 113 of the Graham Act and the sanctions and restrictions in sections 102(a), 102(d), 102(e), 103 to 111 and 117. Section 4(d) says the waivers "shall remain in effect until such time as the President or the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Trade Representative, as appropriate, determine that further action is appropriate." The order contains no 60-day limit. On the text alone, the waiver is open-ended. Rubio's 60 days may describe an internal review period, but no such period appears in the order.

ABC News reports that the order waives every operative Russia section of the law, including tariffs of up to 500 percent on Russian goods and up to 100 percent on the top five buyers of Russian oil and gas and the top five facilitators of sanctions evasion. It also waives the bans on buying Russian sovereign debt and on new US investment in Russia. Existing sanctions imposed by earlier executive orders are untouched, and the order says so. ABC notes, however, that the order also waives the provision that required those sanctions to stay in place, which clears the way for unilateral action on them later.

The law lets the president waive its provisions if he certifies to Congress that doing so is in the national interest and submits a report explaining why. The order says the certification has been sent. RFE/RL reports that the substantive justification has not been made public. Max Meizlish of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told RFE/RL that this justification is now the central question.

On the motive: France 24, citing AFP, reports the order followed a deal with Moscow allowing Russian diesel exports in exchange for easing sanctions. ABC reports that OFAC issued a general license through April for Russian diesel imports. Rubio cited conflicts that are pushing up energy prices, including the US war with Iran. These reports establish the timing and the diesel link. They do not establish that the midterms were the reason, which remains an inference by critics.

Reaction was bipartisan. Republicans Tillis ("Beyond irresponsible"), John Cornyn, Ted Cruz and Representative Don Bacon criticised the move, as did Democrats Chuck Schumer and Richard Blumenthal. Republican Representative Thomas Massie welcomed it.

Sources

• White House: Implementing the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 (executive order)
• ABC News (US): Trump signs order waiving Graham Act sanctions on Russia
• RFE/RL: Trump waives Graham Act sanctions on Russia before they take effect
• France 24 / AFP: Rubio says Trump to 'analyze' global impact of Russia sanctions during pause

Source notes

The executive order is the primary document. It was issued by a party to the dispute, but its wording is the main evidence on the 60-day question. RFE/RL is funded by the US government, and its story leans on Ukraine advocacy voices (Razom for Ukraine) and an analyst from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a think tank with a hawkish view on Russia. RFE/RL's report that the administration missed an Oct 8 deadline under section 113 rests on unnamed sources and is unverified. The certification and report sent to Congress have not been published, so the administration's full reasoning cannot be checked. A Politico report timed out and is not cited. Open question: whether any formal 60-day review has been documented anywhere outside Rubio's remarks.

Lead image: Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks to reporters at Joint Base Andrews, Oct. 17, 2026. Photo: Kylie Cooper/Reuters, Pool, via The Hindu.