A new US sanctions bill aims to strangle the Kremlin’s oil revenues

WASHINGTON – A bipartisan group of US lawmakers has introduced new legislation targeting what they describe as the Kremlin’s primary financial lifeline: oil exports.

The Russian Oil Profits Decline Act of 2026, unveiled by Republican Congressman Michael McCaul of Texas on February 11, would require targeted sanctions on any individual or foreign entity involved in purchasing, importing, or facilitating crude oil and petroleum products of Russian origin.

The measure aims to close what lawmakers say are persistent loopholes in the current sanctions regime and limit Moscow’s ability to finance its war in Ukraine.

“Russian energy is the lifeblood of the Kremlin’s war machine, and a reduction bill would drain this key source of revenue,” McCaul said in a statement announcing the bill.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown he will not be willing to seek peace “unless the cost of continued bloodshed is too high,” he said, adding that the legislation would give US President Donald Trump additional leverage as he pressures allies to do more. “It is time for every country and every individual to choose between engaging with the free world or continuing to fund Putin’s brutality,” he said.

The group in the House includes Republicans McCaul and Mike Lawler of New York, along with Democrats Bill Keating of Massachusetts, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Mike Quigley of Illinois, and Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey.

In the Senate, the companion measure was introduced by Republican Sens. Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania and John Husted of Ohio, along with Democrats Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Chris Coons of Delaware.

Closing the “Shadow Fleet” vulnerability.

Western governments have imposed successive rounds of sanctions on Moscow since its massive invasion of Ukraine in 2022, including capping the prices of Russian oil exports. But Russia has increasingly relied on a so-called “shadow fleet” of aging tankers and complex third-party arrangements to transport crude oil at prices that often exceed international borders.

The DROP Act seeks to directly address this ecosystem.

According to its sponsors, the bill would strengthen existing ratings on two major Russian oil companies, impose sanctions on foreign actors complicit in purchasing Russian oil products, and close loopholes that allowed some buyers to charge fees higher than the maximum international price.

Lawler emphasized that implementation is the key issue.

“Sanctions will only work if they are implemented,” he said, arguing that the legislation would strengthen the existing sanctions regime and “cut off key funding for Putin’s war machine.” He added that it was time to use “the full force of American economic power to put pressure on the Kremlin.”

Keating drafted the bill as part of a broader effort to ensure consequences for Moscow’s actions.

“Congress and the President must do more to ensure that Putin and his war machine feel the consequences of their illegal actions,” he said, noting that the legislation would require sanctions to be imposed on countries unless they meet specific criteria showing support for Ukraine. He added that as the war approaches its fourth anniversary, this action indicates “continued partisan support for Ukraine.”

‘A long-awaited step’

For Kaptur, co-chair of the Ukrainian Caucus in Congress, the moral dimension is of central importance.

“If you are trading Russian oil, you are financing Putin’s illegal war and the all-out invasion of Ukraine,” she said, calling the bill a “long overdue step” to cut off oil revenues and boost the prospects for a just end to the conflict.

Quigley, also a co-chair of the caucus, said Russia has “weaponized the global oil ecosystem” since launching its invasion, and said the bill would “close the price gap loophole” and “cut off a major source of funding for the Russian military.”

Likewise, Gottheimer said the legislation would “tighten the screws” on Russian oil exports, ensure “real consequences” for those who buy oil above the maximum price, and create stronger incentives to support defense and reconstruction in Ukraine.

Strategic flexibility – and political issues

The bill includes provisions that allow the administration to grant exemptions to countries that significantly reduce imports of Russian oil or provide significant military and economic aid to Ukraine — a reference to concerns among some U.S. partners about energy security and economic turmoil.

Shelby Magid, deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, called the proposal “an important and timely step.”

Speaking to RFE/RL on February 12, she said the legislation shows bipartisan support for Ukraine and reflects “justified frustration at the continuing barrage of Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilians.”

Majid noted that 2025 was the deadliest year for civilians in Ukraine since 2022, and pointed to ongoing Russian strikes on energy infrastructure during the harsh winter.

She added: “As Moscow escalates its attack on the Ukrainian people and undermines peace efforts, Congress is right to act to grant additional authorities to target key Russian revenue sources and strengthen sanctions enforcement.” “Diplomacy cannot come at the expense of protecting Ukrainian civilians from weapons funded by the Russian war economy.”

However, analysts warn that partisan support in Congress does not automatically guarantee passage of the law.

Tyson Parker, a former US deputy special envoy for economic recovery in Ukraine who now works with the German Council on Foreign Relations, said such efforts are worthwhile, adding that he favored “anything that tightens the screws on Russia, imposes costs, and strangles the war machine.”

But it raised a crucial question: whether the White House would effectively support the measure.

Despite broad bipartisan support, Parker noted that congressional leadership may hesitate to introduce it without administration approval. “What is crucial is active administrative support for this legislation,” he said, noting that such support will determine whether it can move forward.

Parker also pointed to what he described as a diplomatic “shock” in Europe, with negotiations continuing involving Russia, the United States and Ukraine alongside separate EU efforts to shape Ukraine’s accession path.

Oil as a means of pressure

Supporters of the bill claim that imposing sanctions and putting more pressure on Russian energy revenues is necessary if the ceasefire talks are to produce meaningful results.

“Despite multiple rounds of ceasefire talks, Putin’s war goals appear to remain unchanged,” said Scott Cullinan, co-founder of the US-European Alliance, a US transatlantic human rights advocacy organization.

“For any talks to achieve results, it is increasingly clear that additional influence must be applied to Russia,” he told RFE/RL.

He described oil revenues as a “lifeline” for Putin, adding: “If we want to see progress in the talks, the West can and must strangle Russian oil sales.”

Whether the DROP Act becomes law may depend on political calculations in Washington. But his argument highlights a growing consensus on Capitol Hill: that as long as Russian oil continues to flow freely into global markets, so will the money supporting Moscow’s war effort.