Why are American businessmen unwilling to buy cheap Russian oil—even refusing to allow Russian tankers to dock at their ports?

The reason is simple: Trump invoked the 'Presidential National Interest Waiver' clause in the 2026 Lindsey Graham Act on Sanctions Against Russia and Iran (the Graham Act) to waive numerous sanctions against Russia—including those on diesel. This loophole was originally demanded by Trump himself; he refused to sign the bill—and threatened even passive enforcement—unless presidential waiver authority was included, forcing Congress to ultimately compromise. The Act also includes exception provisions authorizing the U.S. president to grant conditional sanctions waivers. But the problem lies in the fact that there isn’t just one law sanctioning Russian oil. During Biden’s administration in 2022, Congress passed the ‘Act to End Importation of Russian Petroleum,’ which bans imports of Russian crude oil, refined petroleum products, LNG, and coal. This law grants no waiver authority to the president—meaning that any U.S. company purchasing Russian diesel would be breaking the law. Citing standards under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), violations carry criminal penalties of up to $1 million in fines plus 20 years’ imprisonment. Who would risk jail time just to buy oil? Members of Congress are closely watching every company across the country—and any firm daring to purchase Russian oil faces immediate prosecution. Beyond the constraints imposed by Biden-era legislation, U.S. companies also face reputational risks internationally.

Fourty thousand tons of Russian diesel bound for the U.S.—a controversy erupts at New York Harbor. Who really sets fuel prices for China?

Moscow hadn’t yet launched its full-scale initiative when other parties—having received the signal—moved first: the U.S. issued a temporary license; Europe began reassessing its sanctions framework; and China quietly expanded its procurement channels. Everyone is using the leverage Russia offered—to advance their own interests. This time, Russia’s calculations were flawed from the outset. Yet to determine precisely where those miscalculations lie, several critical accounts must be settled. First: how large a market can 40,000 tons of diesel actually capture? Second: who is driving the narrowing of the discount on Russian crude oil? Third—and most easily overlooked—is this: although the U.S. has opened a policy channel for diesel imports, whether this cargo will ultimately be unloaded at a U.S. port remains subject to a legal and commercial battle. It is precisely this third account that will truly decide the transaction’s success or failure. On October 22, 2026, the Maltese-flagged tanker ‘Agioi Fanendes’ loaded approximately 40,000 tons of ultra-low-sulfur diesel at Primorsk Port on Russia’s Baltic coast. Subsequently, vessel-tracking systems showed its destination as New York, USA—with an estimated arrival date of November 7. News spread rapidly. This easily created the impression that Russian diesel had re-entered the U.S. market—and that Moscow had secured a new export outlet. But shortly thereafter, a supplementary report altered the certainty of this narrative. The vessel’s management company later told Reuters that the ship remained awaiting further instructions, and both the discharge port and final destination remained undetermined. This means that the appearance of ‘New York’ in the Automatic Identification System (AIS) does not confirm that the transaction has been finalized. In international oil trading, loading, sailing, determining the discharge port, and completing delivery are distinct stages. A vessel may declare a destination upon departure—but later adjust its route based on sales contracts, port scheduling, transportation conditions, and market shifts. For ordinary cargo, such adjustments rarely attract attention. But this shipment involves Russian diesel—a commodity long embroiled in sanctions controversies. Will the buyer accept delivery? Will banks process payments? Can insurance and port services be smoothly arranged? All these factors influence the final outcome. As of November 3, this diesel shipment still could not be regarded as completed U.S. import cargo. November 7 was merely the previously estimated arrival date derived from shipping data—not the actual unloading date, which had yet to occur. Moreover, obstacles to this transaction quickly extended beyond the commercial realm. On October 27, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal publicly demanded that relevant shipping companies recall the tanker carrying Russian diesel, arguing that delivering Russian diesel to U.S. ports might violate pre-existing U.S. energy import bans. This is no longer simply a matter of price. Even if buyers deem the diesel price attractive, they must weigh the legal risks arising after completion of the transaction. A seemingly cheap cargo may prove uneconomical for traders if it triggers regulatory investigations, lawsuits, or operational losses. By November 2, the situation shifted again. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy issued a formal warning to port and terminal operators across the state, opposing the receipt of Russian diesel and noting that related transactions might violate federal law.

New Jersey Governor Warns Ports Against Accepting Russian Diesel

18 hours ago

New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill warned port operators that accepting Russian diesel violates federal law, despite a recent presidential license allowing over 300,000 metric tons amid record-high diesel prices.

reuters

2026-11-03

NJ Governor Warns Ports Against Russian Diesel Allowed by Trump

2026-11-03

New Jersey Governor Warns Ports Against Accepting Russian Diesel

New Jersey Governor Warns Ports Against Accepting Russian Diesel

FAQ