OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Trump Waives Russia Sanctions Sparking GOP Backlash

22 sources · updated 2026-10-19
Left 59% Center 18% Right 23%
13 left · 4 center · 5 right

What happened

President Donald Trump signed an executive order late Friday waiving every operative Russia-related provision of the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, two days before those measures were scheduled to take effect on October 18. Trump had signed the Act into law in mid-September after the House passed it on September 16; it required duties of up to 500 percent on all Russian goods imported into the United States, tariffs of up to 100 percent on the top five purchasers of Russian crude oil and natural gas, sanctions on foreign banks doing significant business with Russian state-owned banks, and bans on U.S. purchases of Russian sovereign debt and related transfers. Trump certified to Congress that the waiver was in the national interests of the United States; the order left in place Russia sanctions imposed under earlier executive orders. The action followed by one week a Treasury Department general license, running through April 2027, authorizing the sale, delivery, and import of Russian diesel. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said enforcing the Act’s sanctions now would impede ongoing U.S. efforts to negotiate a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia, and that the president retains the ability to use those authorities later.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 22 articles

16 of 21 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with unnamed sources; a named source appeared 1 hour later.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 16 of 21
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Richard Blumenthal, Thom Tillis, Donald Trump, Don Beyer and Volodymyr Zelensky
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 9 of 21
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: executive order, on-record letter, legislation, social media post
Credits another outlet 0 of 21
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 21
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 17, 00:49 UTC by Bloomberg, with no named source. First named source 1 hour later, from Fox Business. First document 1 hour later, from Fox Business (executive order).
Not counted 1
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

The waiver reaches further than a tariff pause. Left-leaning coverage reports that the order waived every operative Russia section of the Graham Act, including a statutory lock that had required older sanctions to remain. Right-leaning coverage presents the move as leaving prior executive-order penalties untouched. Removing that lock is "clearing the way for the president to take unilateral action on them as well," ABC News reports, a legal step absent from Fox Business. The same order is cast in opposite moral language. Schumer, quoted by ABC News, calls it a "deal with the devil." Bessent, quoted by the Washington Examiner, says "no one has been tougher" on Russian sanctions than Trump. Does the White House intend to lift the older Russia sanctions whose statutory lock it just removed?
Bottom line

The order did not merely delay new 500 percent tariffs on Russian goods. ABC News reports it also stripped the Graham Act's lock on older Russia sanctions, a step Fox Business does not describe.

The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • The act required duties of up to 500% on all Russian goods imported into the U.S. numberin CNBC, ABC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said enforcing the sanctions now would impede talks on a peace agreement official statementin ABC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • The order waived the section allowing sanctions to end if Russia signed a peace agreement accepted by Ukraine contextin ABC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Nikki Haley called the waiver a terrible misjudgment of Putin official statementin Fox Business · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Ted Cruz said the waiver was a mistake and that he would tell Trump not to issue it official statementin Fox Business · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets portrayed the waiver as Trump aligning with Vladimir Putin against a newly enacted bipartisan law, Ukraine, and U.S. allies. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who helped draft the Act, said Trump “stands on the side of a bloodthirsty thug & the enablers of Russia's war machine & against the majority of Americans, their representatives in both houses of Congress, & our European allies.” Sen. Chuck Schumer said Trump “just gave Putin the best birthday gift he’ll get this year” and that “Trump’s deal with the devil keeps getting dirtier.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called undoing the bill “wrong,” said it “definitely helps only the Russians,” and warned it “fuels their satisfaction and their desire to keep killing people,” predicting further sanctions relief after the diesel arrangement. These sources stressed that Russian oil revenue funds the war, that the move came ahead of November 3 midterms when fuel prices are politically sensitive, and that Republicans including Sen. Thom Tillis (“beyond irresponsible”) and Sen. John Cornyn (Graham “would be appalled”) also condemned it; they noted Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev hailed a “historic moment.”
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets led with Republicans breaking ranks while also airing the White House defense and a dissenting GOP welcome. Fox Business highlighted Nikki Haley calling the waiver a “terrible misjudgment of Putin, who has made it clear he wants to destroy the West,” Sen. Ted Cruz saying “I wish the president hadn't done it. I think it was a mistake” and that he would tell Trump not to waive the sanctions, and Sen. Darline Graham saying she would “choose to keep the pressure on Russia” because she does not trust Putin. Trump told reporters it was “a very good decision” that would be “good for the country, and I think good for the world.” Rep. Thomas Massie, who had voted against the Graham bill, said he was “glad” Trump used “the executive authority granted to him by Congress to waive almost all of the provisions of this stupid law that pertain to Russia.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argued “no one has been tougher” on Russian sanctions than Trump and framed the pause as tied to a diesel deal meant to ease energy prices.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that Trump froze, on the eve of implementation, a package Congress had just passed by large margins—including an 86-11 Senate vote—to cut oil revenue funding Russia’s war, a step Zelenskyy said “definitely helps only the Russians” and that GOP senators close to Graham branded “beyond irresponsible” and something Graham “would be appalled” by, even as Putin’s envoy called it “historic.” The right’s strongest argument, voiced by the White House, Bessent, and Massie, is that the statute expressly lets the president waive provisions in the national interest, that Rogers said enforcement now would impede peace talks, that prior executive-order sanctions remain, and that Trump retains the authorities—while Massie notes Congress itself wrote this off-ramp into a law he had opposed. The central unresolved tension is whether invoking that waiver clause one month after signing the Act is a lawful use of flexibility for negotiations and energy prices, or an emptying of a bipartisan statute without a showing that Russia has given anything in return.

22 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.