Bipartisan group of senators calls for Trump to reverse Russian diesel plan

By the Editorial Team · Monday, October 12, 2026

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators has urged President Trump to cancel his agreement to import diesel fuel from Russia, citing violations of a 2022 law banning Russian energy imports to prevent funding Russia’s war in Ukraine. The dispute highlights deepening congressional opposition and concerns over undermining U.S. efforts to pressure Russia, even as the administration argues the deal is necessary to lower domestic fuel costs.

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators has called on President Donald Trump to reverse a recent decision to purchase diesel fuel from Russia, arguing that the move contravenes U.S. law and undermines efforts to curtail Russian revenue amid its ongoing conflict with Ukraine. The senators expressed concern that the administration’s plan to import Russian diesel disregards statutes aimed at limiting financial support to Russia’s war efforts.

Trump announced on October 9 that he had reached an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin for Russia to supply over 300,000 tons of diesel immediately, with additional shipments planned for November and beyond. The administration temporarily lifted sanctions on Russian fuel imports to facilitate the deal, framing it as a measure to lower rising diesel prices in the United States and globally. Diesel fuel is critical for sectors such as agriculture, home heating, and transportation, and prices have approached record levels.

The group of senators, which includes four Republicans—Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Thom Tillis (North Carolina), and John Curtis (Utah)—and three Democrats—Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire), Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut), and Ron Wyden (Oregon)—issued a statement on October 11 criticizing the deal. They contended that the administration failed to consult Congress or provide justification for the decision as required by law, specifically highlighting a 2022 congressional ban on energy imports from Russia. The ban was intended to prevent U.S. dollars from funding Russian military actions following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

“The United States should not provide Putin with a financial lifeline while Russia continues to kill Ukrainian civilians,” the senators wrote, urging the administration to rescind the diesel import plan immediately.

Senator Tillis underscored the potential illegality of the deal during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” questioning whether the administration was complying with existing laws. He emphasized Russia as the aggressor in the conflict and suggested that purchasing Russian energy essentially supports that aggression.

On the other hand, some Republicans defended Trump’s actions. Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, called the president’s decision a necessary but difficult choice aimed at lowering U.S. energy costs. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also supported the move, stating on Fox News that the administration would proceed with the deal under existing legal authority and that it would benefit American consumers.

The diesel purchase has drawn criticism beyond Congress. Former Vice President Mike Pence described lifting sanctions on Russian oil as a betrayal, urging Trump to reverse course. Retiring Nebraska Representative Don Bacon also called it morally wrong to support Russia’s war economy. Meanwhile, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that the diesel agreement contradicts allied efforts to promote peace and stability in Europe.

President Trump claimed on social media that Russia and Ukraine had agreed to an "energy ceasefire," but details were sparse, and Ukrainian officials said they had yet to receive confirmation of such an arrangement. Moscow has not commented publicly on the announcement.

As the November midterm elections approach, the diesel deal has become a focal point of bipartisan debate, with growing Republican dissent reflecting broader concerns about the administration’s foreign policy and energy strategy.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.