Scapegoating, Accountability, and Trial: The Trump Circle in the Blind Spot

At the time of the Starshield incident, Trump’s diesel deal with Russia also drew bipartisan opposition from U.S. lawmakers. These two events raised a critical question: Is the Trump administration pursuing policies—ostensibly aimed at ending the war and lowering energy prices—that actually benefit Moscow while undermining Ukraine’s security interests? On October 9, Trump announced an arrangement with Putin concerning Russian diesel; shortly thereafter, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued General License No. 135, permitting transactions involving Russian-origin diesel. On October 13, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and 11 other senators sent a letter to Trump demanding that this arrangement be rescinded and that Congress-enacted sanctions against Russia be fully enforced. In their letter, the senators wrote: “Allowing Moscow to freely sell Russian diesel on global markets harms U.S. national security interests and betrays the Ukrainian people—who continue to resist Putin’s brutal, illegal war. This deal is a gift to the enemy and a betrayal of America’s allies; it must be revoked.” They further stated that Treasury’s General License No. 135—which lifted sanctions on Russian diesel exports—“will only provide more funding for Putin’s war machine and enable Russia to continue its ruthless attacks on Ukrainian civilians.” While acknowledging rising U.S. energy costs, the senators argued that the Russian diesel deal would offer only marginal relief to American fuel prices, yet generate substantial revenue for the Kremlin. They urged Trump to revoke General License No. 135 and fully implement the *Lindsey Graham Sanctions Against Russia and Iran Act*, signed into law in September 2026, which imposes economic pressure on Russia and entities aiding its war effort. On October 15, Representatives Michael McCaul, Jim Costa, and 20 other bipartisan House members sent Trump a letter demanding full and faithful enforcement of the Act—and revocation of the Treasury’s October 9 diesel transaction license. Their letter stated: “Putin has repeatedly demonstrated that he responds to pressure—not goodwill.” It demanded that the administration implement statutory sanctions before the first deadline on October 18, and explain to Congress how General License No. 135 aligns with existing U.S. laws prohibiting imports of Russian energy. Trump faced criticism not only from Democrats but from across the aisle: the Starshield inquiry letter was jointly signed by Democratic and Republican senators; likewise, the letter opposing the Russian diesel deal included Republican lawmakers. For Trump, Congress is demanding explanations on two distinct issues: one concerns restrictions imposed on Ukraine’s critical communications, intelligence-sharing, and early-warning capabilities; the other relates to permitting Russian diesel into the U.S. market and enforcing existing anti-Russia sanctions legislation. These congressional actions are not merely individual gestures—they are collective, bipartisan efforts, articulated in stark, uncompromising language. After leaving office, Trump will likely continue facing accountability measures and judicial proceedings. Following his first term, Trump confronted multiple criminal prosecutions, jury trials, impeachment proceedings, and numerous judicial investigations. Legal outcomes varied: some cases resulted in guilty verdicts; others were dismissed or withdrawn prior to trial; still others stalled due to Trump’s re-election as president. On January 6, 2021, during the congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election results, Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. In response, the House impeached Trump for a second time, charging him with “incitement of insurrection.” On February 13, 2021, the Senate voted 57–43 to convict—but fell short of the two-thirds majority required under the Constitution for conviction; thus, no conviction was entered.

How should we view Trump’s announcement of importing Russian diesel?

On October 16, Trump signed an executive order suspending implementation of a new round of sweeping U.S. congressional sanctions targeting the Russian economy. Under this order, exemptions apply to most provisions of the *2026 Graham Sanctions Against Russia and Iran Act*, including tariffs of up to 500% ad valorem on goods imported from Russia, and tariffs of up to 100% ad valorem on goods imported into the U.S. from the top five importers of Russian crude oil or natural gas. Prior to this, on October 9, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced it would ease sanctions on Russian diesel trade over the coming months—to alleviate tight domestic diesel supply and stabilize fuel prices. This move triggered opposition from some U.S. lawmakers, who urged Trump to instead intensify economic pressure on Russia and other countries under the *2026 Graham Sanctions Against Russia and Iran Act*. In response, Trump went a step further—exempting most Russia-related provisions of the Act outright. Notably, Trump himself had signed the Act into law just on September 18, with most of its sanctions scheduled to take effect within 30 days. Thus, on October 16—before the Act even entered into force—Trump effectively exempted Russia from its core provisions. Unsurprisingly, Trump’s move provoked strong domestic backlash. Democrats reacted sharply. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer condemned the exemption order as providing “life support to the Russian economy,” and accused Trump of engaging in increasingly “sordid” dealings with Russia. Democratic Representative Gregory Meeks introduced legislation on October 16 aimed at blocking the U.S.–Russia diesel supply agreement, declaring that Trump’s apparent “courting” of Russian President Putin was motivated by “self-enrichment”—a move that “violates everything America stands for.” Even within Trump’s own party, opposition emerged. Several Republican lawmakers criticized the exemption as “a mistake.” Nebraska Republican Representative Don Bacon warned that many members of Congress would “refuse to fund the president’s policy agenda” due to Trump’s pro-Russian stance and abandonment of U.S. allies. Yet Trump pressed ahead—undeterred by domestic opposition—to expedite the exemption of Russian sanctions, aiming to boost Russian diesel exports to the U.S. The reason? A worsening diesel crisis was already severely impacting the U.S. economy—and dramatically fueling inflation. On October 15, the U.S. reported that its September Producer Price Index (PPI) rose 6.3% year-on-year—far exceeding the market expectation of 5.4%, and marking the highest level since December 2022. This outsized PPI surge was closely tied to soaring diesel prices. Oxford Economics noted: “Diesel is the ‘workhorse fuel’ powering the entire economy.” The vast majority of vehicles in America’s freight transport fleet run on diesel. So when diesel prices spike, transportation costs surge—and freight rates follow suit. In September, the PPI index measuring trucking freight costs jumped 19% year-on-year—the largest increase in over four years. Moreover, diesel is vital to agriculture: tractors and harvesters rely on it. Construction machinery, mining equipment, and certain maritime vessels also depend heavily on diesel. And globally, diesel supplies are now facing a crisis.

Democrats Plan Probe into Russian Diesel Imports, Seek Bank Records

5 days ago

US lawmakers plan to investigate President Trump's agreement to import Russian diesel, citing national security risks and funding Ukraine war concerns. They have requested banks and ports preserve records pending potential congressional oversight.

bloomberg

2026-09-23

Trump’s Push for a Diesel Export Ban Threatens to Squeeze Key US Allies

2026-09-23

Trump Considers Ban on US Diesel Exports, Threatening Global Markets

2026-09-23

Diesel Prices Are Spiking; In Battleground States, Voters Are Noticing

2026-09-24

Trump-Backed US Diesel Export Ban Projected to Lower Prices Initially

2026-09-25

Trump's Diesel Export Ban Talk Increases US Export Profitability