US Senators from both Republican and Democratic parties called on President Donald Trump on Sunday to “undo” the diesel supply deal concluded with Russia, saying that it contravenes US law that bans energy imports until Russia ends its aggression against Ukraine.
The seven senators, four of whom are from Trump’s Republican Party and three from the Democratic Party, said in a statement: “Congress explicitly banned the import of Russian energy in 2022 to prevent the use of the US dollar to finance the brutal war that (Russian President Vladimir) Putin is waging against Ukraine.”
They added that the administration did not consult with Congress or provide any explanation for its decision, which is also required by law, according to what Reuters reported.
“The United States should not provide Putin with a financial lifeline at a time when Russia continues to kill Ukrainian civilians,” the statement said. “The administration must immediately redirect its course.”
This is the latest criticism from both parties of Trump's deal, in a shift from the near unanimous GOP support for Trump's foreign policy decision weeks before the midterm elections scheduled for November 3, which will determine whether Republicans maintain control of Congress.
The statement was issued by Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and John Curtis of Utah, and Democrats Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Ron Wyden of Oregon.
Tillis said earlier that President Trump's deal with Russia regarding diesel may be illegal and would put American lives at risk.
Trump stated that Russia had agreed to supply diesel shipments to global markets, and that his administration had temporarily lifted US sanctions imposed on Russian fuel, which were aimed at depriving Moscow of the revenues necessary to finance its war on Ukraine.
Tillis, who is scheduled to leave the Senate when his term ends next January, told NBC's "Meet the Press" program: "I think there is good justification for saying that the president is not abiding by the law."
US Treasury Secretary Scott Besent told Fox News on Sunday that the Trump administration will implement the diesel agreement with Russia using the legal authorities available to it, adding that the agreement that Trump announced on Friday is in the interest of the American people and will lead to lower prices.
Besant continued: “We will implement it (the deal) using all the legal powers available to us.” “So, anyone in Congress who says there's an old bill or a current Lindsey Graham bill that prevents us from doing this is wrong.”
Reports related to the midterm elections in the United States indicated that Republicans spent half a billion dollars in one month on congressional races, and launched an unprecedented wave of attack ads against Democratic candidates, benefiting from a large financial superiority and a huge political treasury amassed by President Donald Trump, but the flow of money has not yet achieved a shift in the opinion polls. What is most disturbing within the Republican Party is that an increasing portion of this money no longer goes to seizing seats from Democrats, but rather to defending Republican states and strongholds that were supposed to be safe.
Since early September, when President Trump opened his political treasury to the party's candidates, Republicans have pumped about $500 million into House and Senate races. But after a month of intense advertising campaign, the Washington Post indicated that opinion polls did not move clearly in favor of Republicans, and Democrats are still in a strong competitive position in the Senate races, in states including Alaska, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas.
These numbers indicate a paradox that is at the heart of the midterm elections. Republicans have the most money, while Democrats are trying to use the political climate to expand the competition map and force their opponents to distribute their money to an increasing number of states and districts.
ABC News estimates the funds available to the most prominent Republican groups at about $1 billion, compared to at least $579 million with a similar group of Democratic organizations. Much of Republican financial power comes from the Trump-aligned MAGA committee, which had about $416 million in cash at the end of August.
The Senate Leadership Fund (the largest political fund working to protect the Republican majority in the Senate) also raised more than $253 million as of the end of June.
Data from the AdImpact website (which specializes in monitoring the impact of advertising) confirms the size of the difference between the two parties’ spending in these elections, especially in the competitive Senate races. Republicans accounted for about 60 percent of advertising spending compared to 40 percent for Democrats, and they spent about $188 million more than their opponents as of the end of September. But the question is no longer only about the amount of money, but rather where are Republicans forced to spend it?
Reports indicated that the Democratic advance in North Carolina was the clearest example of the Republican dilemma. The Senate Leadership Fund planned to spend $71 million in this state to support Republican Michael Whatley against former Democratic Governor Roy Cooper. But he halted his additional spending after pumping in more than $32 million, as Cooper continued to lead in the polls. What is noteworthy is that North Carolina is not a traditionally Democratic state; Trump has won it three times. Instead of continuing to spend there, Republicans began diverting money to Kansas to defend Senator Roger Marshall against Democrat Adam Hamilton.
The fund pumped $10 million into the race, while another conservative group added about $1.6 million. The significance of this step is that Kansas has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1932.
The same problem appeared in the state of South Carolina. Republicans allocated an additional $5 million to defend a seat in a state where a Democrat has not won a Senate election in three decades. Politico newspaper described the scene as an increasing transition of Republicans into a defensive position, while a Republican official summarized the situation by saying that Republicans are facing fires everywhere.
The extent of Republican anxiety in Texas reflects Trump's decision to return to the state, on Wednesday, for the second time in a week, and the third in less than a month. He is holding an election rally in San Antonio to support Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton and House of Representatives candidate Carlos de la Cruz. The visit gains special significance, because Trump won Texas by 14 points in 2024. The state is also one of the strong red strongholds that has not elected a Democratic senator since 1988. During this electoral race, the state has become draining an exceptional amount of Republican money and political effort. The value of its ads exceeded $800 million, including about $600 million for Republicans, according to the Washington Post.
Trump's return comes after his visit to a truck factory in the city of Denton last week, where he called on his supporters to vote for Paxton, before he later acknowledged that Texas had become one of the states that Republicans were worried about. The intensity of his visits, along with the tens of millions pumped by Republican committees into Paxton's race against Democrat James Tallarico, demonstrates how Texas has moved from a stronghold that the party considered secure to an arena that requires direct intervention from the president to rally his base and protect the party's seats in Congress.
Media reports indicated that this flow of money did not produce the hoped-for results in changing voters' positions, as Republicans spent more than $115 million on advertisements aimed at attacking the campaign of Democrat James Tallarico in Texas. However, a New York Times-Siena poll showed that the number of voters who viewed Tallarico favorably remained greater than those who held a negative opinion of him. In the state of Michigan, Democrat Abdel Sayed was subjected to an attack advertising campaign worth $76.2 million, but Fox News polls showed that the percentage of those who view him favorably rose five points since August to 47 percent.
Republicans say that these ads (despite limited results) served an important function: preventing Democrats from expanding their lead, and that this ad spending kept the party's candidates competitive.
As for Democrats, they are trying to compensate for the lack of money with a different strategy that focuses on increasing the number of seats that Republicans are forced to defend. As the chances of Democratic candidates improved in some swing states, the party began directing resources to areas more Republican-leaning, from the states of Kansas, South Carolina, and Texas to districts in Arkansas and Tennessee.
In the House of Representatives, the largest Republican fund was forced to abandon defense of the Omaha district in the state of Nebraska, while groups allied with Trump and Elon Musk began pumping money into Republican districts in the states of Kentucky, Ohio, and Texas. A Republican official working on House races told The Washington Post that the problem is that there is a limited amount of money, and whenever Democrats add new races to the map, Republicans are forced to decide which seats they will continue to defend and which they will abandon.
Even the movement of funds between the two parties has begun to reveal their different status. After Democrat Roy Cooper's position improved in North Carolina, a Democratic fund supporting Senate candidates reduced about $1.1 million from its advertising there, and began directing some of the money to Texas. Thus, the two parties' money moved in opposite directions: Democrats from a swing state to a Republican state, and Republicans from North Carolina to defend Kansas and South Carolina.
This does not mean that the Republican fiscal advantage has lost its importance; Hundreds of millions are still ready to be spent, and Democrats themselves warn that the difference may allow Republicans to flood screens with ads in recent weeks. But the Republican Party is trying to use this money in a political environment affected by Trump's declining popularity, rising gasoline and diesel prices, concerns about the cost of living, and the repercussions of the war with Iran, in addition to the historical tendency of midterm elections to punish the president's party.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer summarized the battle as a confrontation between a massive Republican advantage in money and a Democratic advantage in candidates and the political climate. Therefore, the most important comparison in the November elections may not only be $1 billion for Republicans versus $579 million for Democrats, but rather the direction in which that money is moving. After Republicans spent half a billion dollars in one month, their millions have moved from trying to expand the majority to protecting Texas, Kansas, South Carolina, and other districts that Trump had won by comfortable margins two years ago.
In return, Democrats use a smaller treasury to expand the playing field and force their opponents to defend new territory.
