A dispute between President Trump and Democrats in Congress over his tariff authority has emerged as the biggest obstacle to legislation imposing sweeping new sanctions on Russia, threatening bipartisan hopes to move quickly after Senator Lindsey Graham’s death on a bill he championed.
The dispute centers on a provision of the proposal that would allow — but not require — Mr. Trump to impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on countries that purchase Russian oil and other energy products, and to lift them if he chose to.
Democrats had long bristled at giving the president such discretion, but Republicans argued that doing so was essential to increasing pressure on Moscow and asserted that Mr. Trump would veto any legislation that sought to force his hand.
But as the Trump administration continues its whipsawing tariff campaign, top Democrats have dug in against the move, unwilling to hand the president broader trade powers at a time when they argue he is already trampling over Congress to claim broad authority where he has none.
Representative Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, warned in a joint statement this week that they could not support legislation that “hands President Trump a blank check to continue his chaotic tariff agenda.”
Their concerns took on added urgency just after midnight on Friday, when the Trump administration imposed tariffs of 10 percent to 12.5 percent on goods from dozens of trading partners. It was the latest expansion of Mr. Trump’s aggressive push to go around Congress and move unilaterally to shield the U.S. economy from foreign competition.
The disagreement has complicated what many lawmakers had hoped would be a bipartisan consensus to honor Mr. Graham, the South Carolina Republican, by enacting a key piece of his long campaign to increase economic pressure on Moscow.
The legislation would impose sweeping sanctions on Russia while targeting countries that purchase its oil, gas and uranium, an effort supporters argue is intended to cut off one of the Kremlin’s most important sources of revenue for its war against Ukraine.
Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas and a former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, has spent recent days trying to bridge the divide, a role he has often played in negotiations over major foreign policy legislation throughout his time on Capitol Hill.
He said lawmakers were working to preserve tariffs as a tool strong enough to secure Mr. Trump’s support while addressing Democrats’ concerns that the bill would unnecessarily expand presidential trade authority.
Those concerns center on Section 113 of the legislation, which would authorize the president to impose tariffs of “up to 100 percent” on imports from countries that knowingly purchase Russian-origin crude oil, petroleum products, natural gas or uranium.
Republicans contend the language is narrowly tailored to countries helping finance Russia’s war. Democrats worry it could establish a broader precedent for presidential tariff authority at a time when many in Congress are already uneasy with the administration’s expansive use of tariffs.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate trade, but there are numerous laws that allow the president to issue tariffs in certain circumstances. Mr. Trump has waged an unyielding campaign to use those statutes to circumvent Congress, where Republicans have ceded much of the legislative branch’s power on trade, and do what he pleases with the U.S. tariff system.
Mr. McCaul said that the sanctions bill is “very clear” that it only grants the president tariff authority for its narrow purpose. He said he would be open to adding language explicitly saying so, if that would assuage Democrats’ concerns about how the president and his trade advisers may interpret the legislation.
Despite the impasse, supporters remain optimistic the measure can still advance. Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the bill’s leading Democratic co-sponsor, said this week that “nothing has been this close” to becoming law since he began working with Mr. Graham more than a year ago on the sanctions package.
Mr. McCaul said he had hoped Congress could send the legislation to the president before the House departed Washington for its five-week summer recess on Thursday and before Mr. Graham’s funeral on Tuesday, viewing both as critical milestones for legislation carrying forward one of the South Carolina Republican’s final legislative priorities.
But so far lawmakers have been unable to gain enough momentum to pass the bill in short order.
Instead, the House left Washington without an agreement, leaving the Senate to try to take up the legislation next week.
The bill — also sponsored by Senator Darline Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who was appointed this month to serve the remainder of her brother’s term — has enough backing to ultimately overcome the objections of Democrats expressing concern. But skeptics could drag out the process.
“Passing this legislation would honor my brother’s steadfast commitment to our national security and it would provide President Trump with additional leverage to bring this war to an end,” Ms. Graham said in a statement.
Robert Draper contributed reporting.
