Trump Imposed 500% Tariffs on Russia and Immediately Suspended Them: Rashkin on the Panic in the White House

Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing 500 percent tariffs on Russia, but in the same document, he suspended their application. The decision came just two days before the sanctions were set to take effect, and their future implementation remains at the discretion of the U.S. administration.

Political analyst Yuri Rashkin, in his commentary on Channel 24’s YouTube channel, analyzed the content of the executive order and explained why he believes it benefits the Kremlin. He also discussed the Republicans’ massive campaign spending, which is failing to help them reverse their decline in support, and the power struggle within Trump’s inner circle.

500% tariffs remained on paper

Donald Trump’s new executive order consists of seven sections and contains provisions to tighten trade restrictions against Russia. Section Two provides for 500% tariffs on Russian goods, as well as 100% tariffs on the five largest buyers of Russian oil and gas and the five largest participants in schemes to circumvent sanctions.

However, to understand how this mechanism will work, one must pay attention to other provisions of the document. As early as the fourth section, there is a provision that effectively suspends the application of the newly imposed tariffs.

The very same document, just a few pages later. Section Four: “I hereby cancel the application of any duties.” He imposed and canceled them in a single document, with a single signature, using a single pen. The ink hadn’t even had time to dry,
– Rashkin said.

Thanks to this wording, the White House can announce extremely harsh sanctions against Russia, even though the new tariffs do not actually take effect. Administration officials are able to cite their introduction without explaining why the same executive order provides for the suspension of the restrictions.

Politically speaking, this creates the impression of firmness toward the Kremlin. After all, for a public statement, it’s enough to name the amount of the tariffs, while their practical consequences depend on whether these restrictions are actually enforced.

I’ve seen this before. The “Horns and Hooves” firm: there’s a sign, there’s a seal, papers get signed – but no actual work gets done. What’s the point of all this? So that tomorrow, one of Trump’s people can go on Fox News and say, “The president has imposed 500% tariffs – the toughest in history.” And technically, that would be true. On paper, at least, he did impose them,
the commentator noted ironically.

Another important issue concerns the duration of the sanctions suspension. In Section 4, Subsection D, no specific date is set for when the tariffs are to take effect. Any further decision will depend on whether the president or the secretary of state deems it necessary to reinstate them.

The original intent of the sanctions mechanism, as the commentator explained, was to ensure that economic pressure on Russia would not depend on the political mood in the White House. The restrictions were to operate according to established rules, rather than changing after each round of talks between the U.S. president and the Kremlin.

Now, the administration has the ability to determine on its own when to apply sanctions and when to leave them without practical consequences. At the same time, the executive order does not set a deadline after which the suspended measures would automatically be reinstated.

The suspension remains in effect until the president or the secretary of state decides that further action is necessary. In other words, whenever they feel like it. And when will that happen? Perhaps never. Sanctions once again depend on the mood of a single person and on who called them last,
– Rashkin emphasized.

The timing of the document’s signing is also telling. The new trade restrictions on the largest buyers of Russian oil were supposed to take effect on October 18. However, Trump signed the executive order on October 16, two days before they were scheduled to take effect.

The document was released on Friday at around 10 p.m. Rashkin noted that after prolonged statements about upcoming tough measures, the administration halted them before they could create additional difficulties for Russia.

Equally important provisions are contained in Section 5 of the executive order. There, the president delegates to the secretary of state the authority to make specific decisions regarding the application of sanctions, which in itself is a standard administrative procedure.

However, according to the analyst’s interpretation, clause B provides for the extension of these powers to future laws with similar provisions as well. This would mean that the mechanism for suspending sanctions could apply not only to restrictions that have already been adopted but also to new initiatives by Congress.

Congress hasn’t passed anything yet, no one has signed anything yet, but the possibility of suspending sanctions has already been provided for in advance. If tomorrow Congress says, “Let’s pass a new, even tougher law,” the answer is already ready: “Go ahead and pass it; we’ll turn it off.” You won’t even have to bother the president,
– explained Rashkin.

At the same time, the executive order does not repeal all previous U.S. sanctions against Russia. Section 4, paragraph B, explicitly states that previously imposed restrictions remain in effect.

However, the new measures were developed precisely because the old sanctions were not effective enough. Russia has already learned to circumvent some of the restrictions using a shadow tanker fleet, intermediaries, and banks in third countries through which it continues to conduct trade operations.

The tightening of sanctions was intended to make it more difficult to use such schemes, and the relevant bill, as Rashkin noted, was supported by representatives of both U.S. political parties. The suspension of the new measures leaves the Kremlin free to continue using mechanisms to circumvent the previous restrictions.

The analyst believes the consequences of the executive order extend far beyond a routine softening of trade policy. In his view, the administration’s ability to refrain from implementing measures passed by Congress weakens the influence of U.S. lawmakers on the sanctions pressure against Russia.

The Kremlin Benefits from Sanctions Concessions

The decision not to impose new sanctions requires justification in terms of U.S. national interests. U.S. law requires a written justification for such a decision, which the administration must provide to Congress.

In the signed executive order, Trump noted that the necessary documents had been submitted. However, the text itself does not provide a detailed explanation of why easing restrictions against Russia is in the interests of the United States. The New York Times also drew attention to this.

The White House’s main public argument remains the need to lower fuel prices. According to data cited in the report, the average price of gasoline in the U.S. was $4.33, and there were 17 days left until the congressional elections.

On the eve of the vote, economic issues became particularly dangerous for the Republicans. Trump is trying to link the rise in energy prices to Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries, although the situation on the global market also depends on other factors.

In particular, significant difficulties with the supply of petroleum products have arisen due to the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. This maritime route is vital for energy exports from the Persian Gulf, and the conflict surrounding Iran is affecting the volume of available fuel.

Sarah Rafoul, an analyst at Argus Media, pointed out the insufficient supply of diesel through the strait. Problems with this route have a direct impact on the global market, while Trump focuses on Ukraine in his statements.

And whose war is the one in Iran? Zelenskyy’s? No, it’s Trump’s war. When Washington says, “Diesel is expensive because of Ukraine,” it implies that fuel prices have risen because of my war, and Ukraine is to blame. “He started the fire himself, blamed his neighbor, and called on the one who throws the matches to put it out,”
” the commentator stated.

At the same time, Ukraine proposed to Moscow a mutual cessation of strikes on energy infrastructure. Kyiv was ready to stop attacks on Russian oil refineries if Russia stopped shelling Ukrainian energy facilities.

This arrangement entailed obligations for both sides. However, as Rashkin explained, Putin rejected the proposed terms, and Russian troops continued their attacks on Ukraine.

After that, Washington allowed Russia additional transactions involving diesel fuel and suspended the imposition of new sanctions. The analyst considers Trump’s reaction particularly telling, as he continued to describe Zelenskyy as a difficult negotiating partner.

And what does America do after Putin’s refusal? It grants Russia a license to sell diesel, then eases sanctions, and that very same night, Russia launches 320 “Shaheds.” And after all this, Trump says it’s hard to negotiate with Zelenskyy. This isn’t diplomacy; it’s voluntary Stockholm syndrome,
– Rashkin emphasized.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy had previously warned that Russia is trying to inflict a large-scale blackout on Ukraine on the eve of winter. Attacks on the energy sector threaten to leave people without electricity, water, and heating, and restoring the damaged infrastructure will take a significant amount of time.

The commentator compared the U.S. sanctions decisions to another kind of blackout – a political one. Unlike in Ukraine, where Russian strikes are destroying actual energy facilities, in Washington the issue is the refusal to use tools of economic pressure against the aggressor state.

Two blackouts. One in Ukraine – the real one: no electricity, no heat, no water. An elevator where an elderly woman is stuck on the ninth floor. The second – in Washington. There, they turned off the lights on Putin so no one could see what he’s doing,
– said Rashkin.

In the Kremlin, the U.S. administration’s decision was received positively. Russian investment negotiator Kirill Dmitriev called it an important and historic moment.

In Ukraine, the reaction was the opposite. Oleksandr Merezhko, chairman of the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs, stated that easing the restrictions helps finance the Russian war machine.

Presidential adviser Vladislav Vlasyuk, who had been working with U.S. lawmakers for several months to strengthen sanctions, also criticized Washington’s decision. His comment consisted of just four words: “On the wrong side of history.”

Sanctions consultant Daniel Tienbaum, who works with banks, also expressed doubts about the economic impact. He noted that he was unsure what real benefit easing the restrictions would bring to the U.S. economy.

For Rashkin, this discrepancy between the Kremlin’s reaction and the assessments of economic experts served as yet another argument against Trump’s decision. He believes that the Russian side has seen the pressure ease, while the benefit for American consumers remains unclear.

Communications with Ukraine are being slowed down, while sanctions against Putin are being eased. Things are getting harder for Ukraine and easier for Russia. This is neither a mistake nor chaos. It is already a clear policy direction,
the columnist stated.

Rashkin suggested that American citizens who disagree with the White House’s decision demand a public explanation. In particular, they can appeal to senators to request the release of a report in which the administration explains the U.S. national interest in suspending the sanctions.

Separately, he emphasized the importance of participating in the November 3 election and supporting independent media outlets that are funded by subscribers and reader donations, rather than by major political sponsors.

Billions in Spending Are Not Saving the Republicans

Ahead of the congressional elections, the U.S. Republican Party is spending enormous sums to support its candidates. However, the additional funds are not yielding the expected results, and Democrats continue to lead in a number of key races.

According to data cited by Axios and CNBC, from early September through October 14, Republican political groups allocated more than $740 million to election campaigns. Elon Musk, who had previously promised to distance himself from political battles, has allocated an additional $276 million to support the Republicans since July.

The billionaire’s return to actively funding the party came after his public conflict with Trump. At the time, the U.S. president threatened to review subsidies and government contracts for Musk’s companies, and there were even suggestions within his inner circle to nationalize SpaceX.

Now, the relationship between them has changed significantly. Musk received a scientific award from the president, and his companies are interested in a deal regarding the use of radio frequencies, which requires approval from a federal regulator.

Musk, for his part, had promised not to interfere in politics anymore. Why did he change his mind? Perhaps he recalled how Trump threatened to strip him of government contracts and subsidies last summer. Now he is once again supporting the Republicans. In my opinion, these aren’t just donations – they’re insurance for his business,
– Rashkin speculated.

Despite significant funding, campaign advertising isn’t changing the Republicans’ overall situation. In a number of key Senate races, Democrats maintain the lead, and party funds are forced to spend more and more money to keep their candidates competitive.

The situation in Texas, where Democrat James Tollarico is running against Republican Ken Paxton, is particularly telling. In two weeks, Tollarico’s campaign spent approximately $2.5 million on television ads in Dallas.

Meanwhile, an independent political group supporting Pexton allocated nearly $8 million for similar purposes. However, a budget three times larger yielded only about 70% more ad airtime.

This difference is due to U.S. rules governing the purchase of political advertising. During an election campaign, candidates themselves are entitled to purchase television airtime at special, lower rates, while independent political committees pay standard commercial rates.

Therefore, large donations from billionaires do not always result in a proportionally greater presence on television. For the same amount of money, a candidate’s own campaign can secure significantly more airtime than an organization supporting the candidate independently of the campaign headquarters.

In total, according to the data cited, about $113 million has already been spent against Tollarico. However, in the poll cited by the columnist, the Democrat continued to lead Pexton with 48% to 44%.

Republican pollster Neil Newhouse explained why even such large sums do not guarantee a shift in voter sentiment.

“Money is an amplifier, not a magic wand. You can buy up all the TV airtime, but if voters are against you, advertising won’t change that,”
Rashkin quoted Newhouse as saying.

The commentator observed a similar pattern during his own political career. He himself ran for city and county councils, winning some races but also losing others.

At the same time, his successful campaigns cost him almost nothing. In contrast, the losing campaigns cost more, yet the money didn’t help convince voters.

I myself have won elections to city and district councils. And you know what’s interesting? The campaigns I won cost me almost nothing. But when I lost, I spent more money. That’s when I realized: money can’t change political sentiment. You can buy an umbrella, but it won’t save you from a flood. And right now, the Republicans have a billion-dollar umbrella, even though there’s already a flood all around,
” Rashkin said.

The Republican Party’s problems are also evident in the shift in funding priorities. This spring, one of the main funds supporting Republican Senate candidates announced a $342 million budget, which was intended to be directed toward winning new seats.

At that time, Texas, Kansas, and Nebraska were not among the priorities. These states were considered sufficiently reliable for the Republicans, since Donald Trump had previously won there by a significant margin.

Now, approximately $180 million has already been allocated to these three states. Republicans are forced to spend resources not only on the fight for additional seats but also on holding onto ground in states that, until recently, had not been a major cause for concern.

In North Carolina, one candidate was initially promised approximately $71 million in support. However, after spending $33 million, further funding was cut off, and attention was shifted to other races.

Similar decisions are being made regarding certain incumbent Republican representatives in the House of Representatives. Poor results in internal polls are forcing political action committees to withdraw funding from candidates whose victory is considered increasingly unlikely.

According to Rashkin’s assessment, this shift in priorities indicates serious campaign difficulties. The party is forced to cut support for some candidates in order to direct funds to races where it still hopes to retain its seats in Congress.

The Battle for Positions in the White House

The deterioration of the Republicans’ electoral prospects is also being felt within Donald Trump’s administration. The Washington Post spoke with approximately 20 staff members, advisers, and individuals in the president’s inner circle, who described the mood inside the White House.

According to their assessments, part of the team already expects Republicans to lose their majority in the House of Representatives. The prospects for retaining control of the Senate remain uncertain, as the battle for it could end in victory for either party.

At the same time, competition for influence within the presidential administration is intensifying. Of particular importance is the position of White House Chief of Staff, currently held by Suzie Wiles.

Many in the White House are already convinced that the Republicans will lose the House of Representatives. As for the Senate – it’s a coin toss. And even as the ship begins to list, a struggle for the chief of staff’s seat is already brewing inside. Although Suzie Wiles has no intention of leaving,
– Rashkin said.

Among the possible contenders for her position are influential presidential adviser Stephen Miller, housing finance official Bill Poltey, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin.

None of them has received a new appointment yet, and Wiles herself has not announced her resignation. However, reports of possible successors are emerging even before the election, the results of which could significantly alter the president’s political standing.

Journalists at The Washington Post have paid particular attention to Bill Poltey. He tries to convey his ideas to Trump using large posters featuring his proposals, photos from political rallies, and portraits of the president himself.

He even brings these materials when Trump is on the golf course, in a helicopter, or on a plane. According to the publication, there are now so many posters that they have begun to fill the presidential residence.

At the same time, Trump himself is increasingly expressing dissatisfaction with his team’s performance. He calls friends, aides, and outside advisers, complaining about a lack of information and insufficient public support for his decisions.

There are 18 days left until the election, and the president is complaining that he isn’t being praised enough. He’s used to the idea that money can buy many things, including loyalty. But suddenly it turned out that there is one thing that cannot be bought – the mood of an entire country. And so he begins to look for someone to blame. Of course, not himself,
– noted Rashkin.

The president’s dissatisfaction may also affect the political strategists responsible for the Republican campaigns. Among them are Blair and Lachivita, who are working on the Trump campaign’s electoral strategy.

According to the columnist, they were recently in the Republika Srpska, part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where they advised the local pro-Russian leadership. Such contacts draw attention due to the ties between representatives of the American political establishment and foreign governments.

In particular, Suzy Wiles’ daughter is a partner at a lobbying firm that represents the interests of the Republika Srpska leadership. Rashkin cited this detail alongside reports of internal competition and Trump’s dissatisfaction with the work of his political consultants.

Relations between the president and his team are becoming strained just as Republican candidates are increasingly reliant on expensive advertising campaigns, and party funds are changing their financing plans due to unfavorable polls. According to reports from the president’s inner circle, the battle for influence is already underway, even though the congressional elections have not yet taken place and no personnel changes in the White House leadership have been announced.

Trump lifted sanctions against Russia with a single signature, sparking panic among Republicans ahead of the election: watch the video