Washington, D.C. – In a move that underscores the delicate balance between diplomacy and deterrence in U.S. foreign policy, Senate Majority Leader John Thune announced on Monday that legislation imposing stringent new sanctions on Russia and its key trading partners will be placed on hold pending the outcome of an anticipated summit between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The decision, revealed during a Capitol Hill press briefing, reflects growing Republican caution to avoid undercutting the White House's ongoing negotiations aimed at ending Russia's protracted invasion of Ukraine, now in its fourth year.
"I think they’re thinking that—see how this meeting goes in a couple of weeks with Putin," Thune, a South Dakota Republican, told reporters, referencing discussions with key allies in the chamber. He emphasized close coordination with Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a vocal architect of the sanctions push, who has been liaising directly with White House officials. "I think at least right now [Graham] is working with the White House trying to determine whether or not that meeting that happens in a couple of weeks will be a fruitful one," Thune added, according to a Politico report.
A second congressional source, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations, corroborated the pause, describing the bill as "essentially stalled" until after the leaders' encounter. The source noted that while the measure boasts broad bipartisan support—with more than 80 cosponsors in the Senate alone—advancing it without explicit presidential backing could expose GOP lawmakers to political backlash, particularly in an election cycle where Trump's influence over the party remains unparalleled.
The legislation in question, formally known as the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, represents one of the most aggressive economic salvos proposed against Moscow since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022. Co-sponsored by Graham and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., the bill would authorize the president to impose tariffs as high as 500% on imports from nations continuing to purchase Russian oil, natural gas, and uranium—resources that have sustained Russia's war machine despite Western isolation efforts. It would also expand asset freezes on Russian oligarchs and officials, while targeting secondary sanctions on enablers like China and India, which have ramped up energy imports from Russia to offset discounted sales. Proponents argue it would serve as a "sledgehammer" in Trump's diplomatic arsenal, compelling Putin to the negotiating table by starving his $2 trillion economy of vital revenue streams.
Trump first floated the idea of a Budapest summit last Thursday, October 16, following a two-hour phone call with Putin that he described as "productive" and yielding "great progress." Posting on Truth Social, the president outlined a roadmap: high-level advisers, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, would convene first, paving the way for the leaders' face-to-face in Hungary's capital. "President Putin and I will then meet in an agreed upon location, Budapest, Hungary, to see if we can bring this 'inglorious' War... to an end," Trump wrote. He pegged the timeline to "within two weeks or so, pretty quick," aligning with Thune's "couple of weeks" window.
The choice of Budapest is no accident. Hosted by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán—a Trump ally and one of Europe's few Putin sympathizers—the venue sidesteps International Criminal Court arrest warrants hanging over the Russian leader for alleged war crimes in Ukraine. Orbán, who visited Moscow last year amid EU rebukes, hailed Hungary as an "island of peace" on X, pledging full logistical support, including safe passage for Putin despite EU asset freezes (though no travel ban applies bloc-wide). Analysts see the site as symbolically loaded: It was in Budapest in 1994 that Russia, the U.S., and U.K. signed the Budapest Memorandum, pledging to respect Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for denuclearization—a pact Moscow brazenly violated three decades later.
Yet, as of Tuesday, October 21, the summit hangs in limbo. A senior White House official confirmed to multiple outlets that "there are no plans" for Trump and Putin to meet "in the immediate future," citing a recent Rubio-Lavrov call as sufficient for now. The Kremlin, meanwhile, has doubled down on "maximalist" demands: full Ukrainian capitulation in Donetsk and Luhansk, recognition of annexed territories like Crimea and Kherson, and a veto over Kyiv's NATO aspirations—conditions dismissed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as non-starters. Lavrov reiterated Tuesday that Russia "will NOT agree to a ceasefire until the root causes of the conflict in Ukraine are resolved," per a Foreign Ministry statement.
This isn't the first false start in Trump-Putin diplomacy. Their inaugural summit in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15 yielded no ceasefire, despite Trump's pre-meeting threats of 100% tariffs on Russian partners if no deal emerged within 50 days. That gathering, held at a U.S. military base, featured joint press conferences but little substantive progress, with Putin rejecting territorial concessions and Trump musing about withholding advanced arms like Tomahawk missiles from Ukraine to avoid escalation. Zelenskyy, who lunched with Trump at the White House on October 17, has publicly pressed for those long-range weapons, arguing they would force Moscow's hand: "The more Ukrainian long-range capabilities there are, the greater Russia’s readiness to end the war."
Graham, in a series of X posts, has threaded the needle between hope and hawkishness. Praising Trump's "eminently reasonable" ceasefire proposal at current front lines, he warned that Russian intransigence demands "a heavy price," including the sanctions bill as a "tool in President Trump’s toolbox." The senator, who visited Kyiv in May with Blumenthal, has tied sanctions to broader accountability: a separate measure he champions would designate Russia a state sponsor of terrorism unless it returns an estimated 19,000 abducted Ukrainian children, a cause First Lady Melania Trump has amplified. "Putin would not be able to wage war... without oil and gas revenue," Graham posted Sunday, urging Europe to emulate Trump's pressure on buyers like India, which the president claimed would halt Russian imports—though New Delhi has yet to confirm.
The pause has drawn sharp rebukes from Democrats and Ukraine advocates. Blumenthal called the bill "stronger" than unilateral tariffs, a "message of unity" that has already nudged White House attitudes. On X, users decried the delay as Putin "playing Trump," with one analyst noting, "The prospect of a meeting... is necessary to get Congress to keep postponing the sanctions bill." Ukrainian outlet Ukrinform highlighted the irony: Just days after Trump discussed sanctions with GOP leaders, the bill stalls to accommodate a summit now in doubt.
Economically, the stakes are immense. U.S.-Russia trade has plummeted from $53 billion in 2021 to $5.5 billion last year under prior sanctions, but Moscow has pivoted to Asia, exporting record oil volumes that funded $100 billion in military spending this year alone. The bill's secondary tariffs could disrupt this lifeline, potentially shaving 2-3% off Russia's GDP, per Oxford Economics models, while pressuring global energy prices amid winter demand.
As the Senate adjourns for the week, eyes turn to Rubio-Lavrov follow-ups. Thune, hedging, told CBS News last week the "time has come" for a vote "soon," but without Trump's nod, momentum wanes. For Ukraine, reeling from recent drone strikes in Sumy that killed civilians mere hours after Russia's summit rebuff, the wait feels interminable. Zelenskyy, en route to London for a "coalition of volunteers" summit Friday, reiterated: Diplomacy demands leverage, not endless olive branches.
In Brussels, EU foreign ministers echoed cautious optimism, welcoming talks if they advance peace but urging no concessions on ICC warrants or seized assets—estimated at $300 billion—to fund Ukraine's reconstruction. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, dining with U.S. lawmakers Monday, stressed interoperability: More Patriots and F-16 upgrades for Kyiv could complement sanctions, turning Trump's "peace through strength" rhetoric into reality.
Critics, including former U.S. ambassadors, warn of repetition: Trump's pattern—threats of escalation followed by de-escalatory calls—has yielded "little to show," per The New York Times, emboldening Putin while frustrating allies. One X user quipped, "Putin achieved his objectives—no sanctions, no Tomahawks—so why meet when Trump is being totally played?"
Yet proponents like Graham see silver linings. The bill's mere existence has "given credibility... to the idea of sanctions," shifting even a once-skeptical Trump toward deadlines. As November looms—with midterms and Zelenskyy's U.N. address—the Senate's calculus could shift. If Budapest fizzles, Thune's 30-day window may force a reckoning: Diplomacy or the sledgehammer?
For now, the hold button is pressed, but the line crackles with unresolved tension. In a war that has claimed over 500,000 lives and displaced millions, every delay risks more blood on frozen fields. The world watches, wondering if words in Budapest—or their absence—will finally tip the scales toward peace.