A two-page letter — followed by 17 months of silence. Senator Elizabeth Warren, the leading Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, and Senator Christopher Coons formally asked State Secretary Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday: why has the Donald Trump administration suspended regular sanctions against companies and banks that help Russia circumvent restrictions imposed due to the war against Ukraine.
This is not a rhetorical question. According to the senators, the administration suspended regular, targeted counter-sanctions against Russia's circumvention of restrictions for 17 months. The last serious blow against Russia was dealt in October 2025, when the U.S. Treasury Department imposed restrictions against oil companies Rosneft and Lukoil. The senators consider these sanctions an exception rather than a return to systematic work, and emphasize that sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil were a one-time action, and Russia easily evades them.
Declaration Without a Deadline
In February, Bessent publicly explained the pause before Congress: the administration wanted to "see where peace negotiations would go" before resuming some counter-sanctions against sanctions circumvention. The problem with this argument is obvious even in the administration's own words: the same team was simultaneously imposing sanctions against Iran and Cuba precisely during negotiations with these countries. In other words, "waiting for negotiations" is not a universal principle, but a selective decision specifically regarding Russia.
And the negotiations they supposedly were waiting for simply did not exist at some point. The senators cite Rubio himself, who stated in May that peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine were not fruitful, and at that time such negotiations were not taking place at all. Meanwhile, the pause in sanctions continued — the condition to "wait for progress" turned into a permanent regime with no mechanism for review.
Scale of the Disconnect
To understand the difference in pace, the figures from the letter itself are sufficient. From the beginning of the full-scale invasion in February 2022 until January 2025, when Trump became president for the second time, the United States imposed 111 packages of sanctions against Russia. After that — essentially one substantial package in a year and a half. Sanctions pressure did not simply slow down, it practically stopped precisely when the negotiation process, by the State Secretary's own admission, reached a dead end.
Reaction of the Parties: References Without Explanation
When Reuters requested comment, the departments responded differently but equally without specifics. A U.S. Treasury Department spokesman simply reminded about sanctions against oil giants and stated that the administration would act in the interests of U.S. national security and peaceful settlement. The State Department spokesman was even more restrained — the department is currently not considering new sanctions measures. No explanation of the mechanism: by what criteria will the pause be lifted, who makes this decision, and whether a deadline exists at all.
It is precisely this gap that the senators are trying to close with a formal request. They demand a response by August 28 to a direct question: if the pause was explained by negotiations, and negotiations reached a dead end several months ago, why have regular sanctions still not been resumed to restore the U.S. leverage on a just peace in Ukraine.
Parallel Track in the Senate — and Its Own Trap
Formal pressure through letters is not the only tool. This month, the Senate passed new legislation on sanctions against Russia. But its fate remains uncertain: both Democrats and some Republicans are concerned that the document in its current form could give Trump new powers to impose tariffs against U.S. allies — including Japan and certain European countries. In other words, a tool designed as pressure on Moscow risks becoming an instrument of pressure on its own partners — and this is already a question not for Russia, but for the architecture of the law itself.
The senators' letter documents the gap between the administration's words and actions, but has no legal force to compel the State Department or Treasury Department to do anything. The response on August 28 — and whether it will be substantive rather than a reference to October sanctions — will show whether the pause remains a political decision or has already turned into a permanent refusal to use the pressure instrument.
