The US House is moving towards a vote on the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, a sanctions package that could allow President Donald Trump to impose tariffs of up to 100% on goods from countries that continue buying Russian crude oil or natural gas or are deemed to facilitate sanctions evasion.
The Senate passed the bill 86-11 on August 7, and the House Rules Committee considered it on September 14 as lawmakers race to act before the midterm-election recess.
Two Democratic amendments highlighted the divisions over the tariff provision: Steny Hoyer proposed explicitly naming India, China and eight other countries as eligible for duties of up to 100%, while Gregory Meeks and three colleagues proposed scrapping Section 113, which creates the broad secondary-tariff authority.
The Rules Committee did not replace the Senate provision with either approach, leaving Section 113 in the legislation as the bill advances. The development has drawn concern from House Democrats, who support pressure on Russia but argue that expanding presidential tariff powers could hurt Americans through higher prices.
Representatives Don Beyer, Gregory Meeks and Richard Neal said the bill could “do more harm than good”, while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has urged Congress to pass it swiftly. For India, the immediate risk is potential, not an active tariff: the legislation is not yet law, and even if enacted, 100% would be the maximum rate rather than an automatic duty.
India Named In Tariff Amendment
The India angle became sharper after Hoyer submitted an amendment that would explicitly identify countries eligible for duties of up to 100% under Section 113. The list includes India, China, Türkiye, Azerbaijan, Hungary, Slovakia, the UAE, Singapore, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyz Republic.
The House Rules Committee’s official record confirms that the amendment sought to insert these countries directly into the section dealing with countries purchasing Russian-origin crude oil or natural gas or facilitating sanctions evasion.
The proposal is significant because India is among Russia’s major crude-oil customers. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Indian refiners have increased purchases of Russian crude, particularly as discounted Russian supplies became available amid Western restrictions.
New Delhi has consistently maintained that its energy decisions are driven by national interest and energy security. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin also reiterated the importance of their bilateral economic relationship during their recent meeting in New Delhi, with both sides seeking to deepen trade and economic cooperation.
However, Hoyer’s amendment should not be interpreted as a decision that India will automatically face a 100% tariff. It was a proposed legislative amendment, and the underlying Senate bill itself does not simply declare India subject to that rate. Section 113 instead creates a mechanism covering qualifying countries based on their Russian-energy purchases or involvement in sanctions evasion.
Democrats Split Over Tariff Power
The opposing amendment came from Meeks, joined by Nydia Velázquez Sánchez, Mike Quigley and Bill Keating. Their proposal sought to strike Section 113 altogether, removing the provision that would give the President broad authority to impose secondary tariffs on Russia’s trading partners. Meeks also proposed tightening the waiver standard and separately sought $15 billion in direct loans for Ukraine’s defence procurement.
The disagreement reflects a difficult political calculation for House Democrats. Many support tougher action against Russia and continued US backing for Ukraine, but they remain wary of giving Trump additional authority to impose tariffs.
In a September 11 statement, Beyer, Meeks and Neal said Democrats were “rock solid” in their support for Ukraine but argued that the bill would “dramatically expand presidential tariff authorities” while failing to mandate sanctions on Russia. They warned that the provisions could raise prices for Americans and weaken long-term support for Ukraine.
Republican supporters, meanwhile, view the tariff mechanism as a way to put pressure not only on Moscow but also on countries whose purchases help sustain Russia’s energy revenues. The Senate’s overwhelming 86-11 vote showed significant bipartisan support for the broader sanctions package. The bill targets Russian officials, financial institutions and the so-called shadow fleet used to circumvent oil restrictions, alongside the secondary-tariff mechanism.
What Section 113 Means For India
Section 113 is essentially designed to turn trade with Russia into a potential source of economic leverage. If enacted, it would authorise the President to raise duties on goods imported from countries falling within the legislation’s defined categories, with the ceiling set at 100%. The provision is aimed at encouraging major Russian-energy buyers to reduce or stop purchases that generate revenue for Moscow.
But several steps remain before this could affect Indian exporters. First, the House must pass the legislation. It would then need to reach the President for signature. Even after enactment, the tariff authority would have to be implemented under the conditions written into Section 113. Therefore, headlines suggesting that the US has already imposed a 100% tariff on India would be premature.
The wider economic stakes are nevertheless considerable. A tariff of up to 100% on Indian goods entering the US could make Indian products substantially more expensive for American importers and potentially affect sectors that depend heavily on the US market. It could also increase uncertainty for businesses and create pressure for retaliatory trade measures.
Russia has also objected to the proposed tariff strategy. The Kremlin has described the threatened measures against Russian-oil buyers as unacceptable, highlighting how the proposal could widen the economic confrontation beyond Russia itself.
The timing adds further urgency. The House has a narrow legislative window before lawmakers leave Washington for the midterm-election period. The Rules Committee has now advanced consideration of the bill, leaving the full House as the next major hurdle.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Russia-Ukraine war has already created consequences far beyond the battlefield, affecting energy prices, trade routes, food security and everyday livelihoods across countries. Using economic pressure to push towards peace can be legitimate, but sanctions and tariffs can also affect people and businesses far removed from the original conflict.
India’s energy relationship with Russia is rooted in its own economic and security calculations, while Ukraine continues to seek stronger international pressure on Moscow. The challenge for policymakers is to pursue accountability without creating another cycle of economic retaliation that ultimately burdens ordinary people.
Also read: SpiceJet’s Dubai Flights Face 24-Hour Delays, Passengers Protest At Airport
