Signing a Sanctions Bill on One Hand, Buying Oil En Masse on the Other: Trump Administration's Russia Energy Policy Contradicts Itself

Washington has presented two starkly different faces on Russian energy within the span of less than a month.

According to The Hindu, the U.S. Congress passed the Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act on September 16 by an overwhelming majority. Two days later, President Trump signed it into law, imposing high tariffs on major buyers of Russian oil and gas. Yet on October 9, Trump posted on Truth Social announcing that he had reached an agreement by telephone with his Russian counterpart Putin: Russia would immediately supply the United States with more than 300,000 tons of diesel, another 500,000 tons in November, and a further 1 million tons thereafter. Trump also wrote that, depending on the condition of Russian refineries, Russia would deliver an additional 3 million tons of diesel "in the near term."

This announcement came at a sensitive moment when U.S. diesel prices were continuing to climb amid the war with Iran. Citing data, The Hindu reported that the U.S. average diesel price reached $6.28 per gallon on October 9 (Friday), up from just $3.68 a year earlier. The report noted that the previous month, Trump had at one point planned to ban U.S. diesel exports, but shelved the move after the oil and gas industry warned it would cause global shortages and drive up prices.

Trump tied the new deal to the U.S.'s so-called "total control" of the Strait of Hormuz, claiming the two combined would bring diesel prices down "by record margins and rapidly." He wrote: "Between our TOTAL CONTROL of the Strait of Hormuz, and today's major announcement on Russian energy, diesel prices in America and the world will fall by record margins, rapidly." He reiterated that Iran would never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.

The legal nexus between the new law and the new deal is not clear. Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat and co-author of the bill, called Trump and Putin's diesel deal "embarrassing." Just after the bill's passage, he had warned China and India to "clean up their act" and buy oil from elsewhere. Now that the U.S. administration has struck a large-scale procurement deal with the same Russian supplier, those warnings have come to look awkward.

Ukrainian President Zelensky's reaction was blunt. He wrote on X: "Gifts to Putin will bring neither peace nor any good to the civilized world." "Russia will 'repay' this diesel deal with more terror and treachery. Allowing Russia to sell petroleum products is an investment in a war that must be ended, not prolonged."

Voices of discontent emerged from members of both parties in the U.S. Congress. Nebraska Republican Rep. Don Bacon, citing polling data, wrote: "70% of Americans support Ukraine. Sustaining Putin's war economy is morally wrong, because he is using the money to bomb cities. The president's policy toward Russia and Ukraine is a failure. What we need is moral clarity, not moral fuzziness." Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul expressed specific concerns: "While I understand the desire to bring diesel prices down, I worry that lifting restrictions on Russian oil sales will only feed the war machine in the Kremlin — as we have seen recently, this will fuel more violence and destruction." California Democratic Rep. Dave Min remarked sardonically: "If Trump continues to strike [illegal] oil deals with Russia, we may have to start sanctioning ourselves."

Multiple U.S. media outlets have noted that the timing of this announcement is closely tied to the November 3 midterm elections, with multiple polls predicting Republicans will face challenges in retaining control of Congress. The reports also noted that the United States is mired in a war with Iran, and fuel prices have become one of the core concerns of voters.

All supply figures cited by Trump come from his call with Putin; whether Russia will actually deliver has not been independently verified. His claim that the United States has "total control" of the Strait of Hormuz has unclear military and legal meaning in the current wartime context. It is noteworthy that, only weeks after the sanctions bill was enacted, the U.S. administration struck a large-scale procurement deal with the very same supplier the bill targeted, laying bare the tension between the warning that "China and India should clean up their act" and this procurement action.