Trump signs Russia sanctions bill named after Lindsey Graham, Zelensky thanks US

US President Donald Trump has signed into law a sweeping sanctions bill targeting Russia, widely referred to as the 'Graham Sanctioning Russia Act' after the late Senator Lindsey Graham. Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, had spent years as one of the most vocal advocates for continued US military and financial support to Ukraine, and he played a key role in driving the legislation before his death. The newly enacted law provides the US president with legal authority to impose expanded sanctions against Russia and, according to Ukrainian sources, also against Iran.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky responded quickly, publicly thanking Trump, senators, members of the House of Representatives, and everyone who contributed to the bill's passage. He emphasized the significance of the measure for Ukraine amid its ongoing conflict with Russia. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha also commented on the signing, calling it a 'truly historic day' for the country.

The White House officially confirmed that Trump had signed the bill, closing out a months-long legislative process in Congress that culminated in bipartisan support for tougher sanctions on Russia. Among the House supporters, Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi was specifically highlighted as the lone Indian-American member of the House to back the sanctions bill — a detail that received particular attention in some outlets across the Global South.

In substance, the law grants the president authority to impose extensive punitive measures against Russia, targeting companies and individuals involved in or economically supporting the war against Ukraine. However, implementation is not mandatory: the legislation grants the president discretion over the scope and timing of actual sanctions enforcement. This point has been emphasized in Russian commentary. Ivan Timofeyev, an analyst at the Valdai Discussion Club, told Russian news agency Sputnik that the so-called 'sanctions from hell' may not be applied at their full threatened severity, since the president is not legally obligated to do so.

Alongside the sanctions debate, Trump made headlines with another decision, announcing that news outlets CNN, MS NOW and Politico would be barred from the White House 'effective immediately.' According to multiple reports, he cited allegedly unfair or false coverage as justification. Critics, including press freedom advocates and some legal experts, called the move unconstitutional and indicated they would pursue legal challenges. However, by the end of the day in question, the administration reportedly had not taken concrete steps to enforce the ban, and reporters from the three outlets continued working at the White House complex.

The close timing of both developments — the sanctions bill signing and the announced media ban — has been framed differently across international outlets. While Ukrainian and Western sources focused primarily on the foreign policy significance of the sanctions, some Asian and Middle Eastern outlets placed greater emphasis on the domestic controversy surrounding press freedom.

It remains unclear to what extent the new sanctions authority will actually be exercised in practice, and what concrete effects this will have on the Russian economy and on diplomatic relations between Washington and Moscow. Similarly unresolved is how the announced exclusion of the three media organizations from the White House will develop legally and practically, should it lead to court challenges.