Last-Minute Push for Russia Sanctions Bill

The American Coalition for Ukraine’s (ACU) fall Ukraine Action Summit arrived at a pivotal moment: the final days before the House vote on the Russia sanctions bill. As lawmakers weighed their positions, advocates for Ukraine met with them as constituents, in some cases becoming the last people to make a direct appeal before the vote.JOIN US ON TELEGRAMFollow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official. Interviews with participants offer a close-up view of those tense hours: lawmakers’ hesitation, advocates’ arguments, and the effort to turn uncertainty into support and a “yes” vote. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) had spent more than a year pressing Congress to adopt sweeping new sanctions against Russia. Weeks after his death in July, the Senate renamed the legislation in his honor and passed it 86 to 11, an overwhelming bipartisan vote that sent the measure to the House. But trouble quickly emerged in the House, where some Democrat lawmakers were not prepared to embrace the Senate-passed bill without changes. Within hours of its passage, Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) warned that they had “fundamental concerns” about the bill’s tariff provisions. The measure, they said, granted Trump “sweeping new tariff authorities that the president could weaponize with abandon.” For Ukrainian advocacy, the bill became the top legislative priority, prompting a nationwide campaign to mobilize supporters and press lawmakers for its passage. By mid-August, most House Republicans appeared prepared to support the bill, encouraged by signals that the White House had given the legislation a green light. Other Topics of Interest 646 Drones Swarm Russia as Fires Hit Europe’s Largest Tank Farm, Oil Facilities Russia says it intercepted 646 drones overnight as fires were reported near major oil and chemical facilities in Volgograd and a huge tank farm in Samara. That forced Ukrainian American advocates to shift their strategy: after months of concentrating on reluctant Republicans, they now had to persuade skeptical Democrats to support the bill. “Now, support from Democrats and representatives of the Democratic Party is very important to us, because without them, we see that this bill will not move forward in Congress,” said Maryna Baydyuk, president and CEO of United Help Ukraine. A month-long ACU advocacy campaign helped build support among House Democrats, as advocates argued that the bill represented Ukraine’s last realistic opportunity before the midterm elections to intensify economic pressure on Russia and push Moscow toward ending the war. “Many House Democrats changed their minds after our delegates met with them. They were shown exactly how this bill would reduce Russia’s funding, that its tariff provisions are limited to Russia’s biggest sponsors, that the legislation gives Congress more control, not less by codifying executive orders, and that the bill received broad support from Ukraine, the European Union and the Senate,” said Eugene Goncharov, director of policy at the American Coalition for Ukraine. Ambassador Erin McKee, CEO of Nova Ukraine urged lawmakers to keep the bill’s broader purpose in view. “I hope lawmakers remain focused on the larger objective: reducing the revenues Russia uses to finance its war against Ukraine,” she said. Many Democrats were prepared to support the bill, but not all, leaving its passage in jeopardy. The vote before the vote The next obstacle was the rule – the procedural vote required before the sanctions bill could reach the House floor. The House had only four scheduled voting days before lawmakers left Washington to campaign for the midterm elections. Speaker Mike Johnson shortened that window further, ending the session Sept. 16 and sending members home until after Election Day. If House Democrats, including Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.), succeeded in amending the bill, it would have to return to the Senate for another vote, effectively closing the narrow path to passage before the recess. The only realistic way to complete action in time was for the House to approve the Senate version without changes. Marianna Tretiak, president and chair of the board of the American Coalition for Ukraine, said waiting could mean losing the only viable path forward. “If this doesn’t pass, we go back to zero,” she said. But first, the House had to adopt a procedural rule allowing that vote and Republicans needed Democratic support to pass it. The two democratic votes that kept the bill alive On Tuesday, Sept. 15, the House adopted the rule 214 to 211. Republicans supplied 211 votes, and independent Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-Calif.) added another, leaving the measure one vote short. Democratic Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.) and Jared Golden (Maine) broke with their party and voted yes. A last-minute push by Ukrainian advocates The rule vote concluded at 5:27 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 15. About five hours earlier, a six-member Washington state delegation had met with the legislative director to Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), according to Katya Sadova, who co-led the delegation. “We met with her office on Tuesday, just ahead of the rules vote,” Sadova said. “We asked how she felt about voting for the rule to put the bill on the floor, and we got a sense that anything could happen.” With the bill’s fate hanging in the balance, Sadova and her fellow advocates made a direct appeal, emphasizing what the vote and the sanctions it would unlock meant for Ukraine. “It gave us a little note of optimism that she might be willing to vote for the rule to put this act on the House floor,” Sadova said. By Tuesday evening, the path was clear: The House would hold its final vote on the sanctions bill the next day, Wednesday, Sept. 16. On Wednesday, the delegation returned to Gluesenkamp Perez’s office to thank her in person. Photo Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) with the Washington State ACU delegation. (Credit: Katya Sadova) “After the vote on the rule, we reached out to the office and asked whether we could come in and thank her,” Sadova said. “When we arrived with the whole delegation, the congresswoman was there. She sat down with us for 15 minutes, asked us about our stories and teared up when we talked about how important this was to us.” How constituents made their case to a New York Democrat On Tuesday, Sept. 15, at about 2:30 p.m., Yuliia Nevmerzhytska, co-leader of the New York state delegation, and other advocates met personally with Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.). Tonko immediately told them that he could not support the sanctions bill because he did not trust the Trump administration to use its tariff authority responsibly. “The first thing he said was that he was not supportive of the bill,” Nevmerzhytska said. “He felt that the president would abuse this tariff authority, and therefore he could not support it. He straight up said that.” Photo Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) with the ACU New York delegation. (Credit: Yuliia Nevmerzhytska) The delegation responded with both personal appeals and detailed arguments about the legislation. Fourteen-year-old Nicole Hnatiuk, a constituent Tonko knew through the local Ukrainian community, spoke about Russia’s abduction of Ukrainian children. Nicole asked Tonko to imagine her in their place. “What if it were me?” she asked, according to Nevmerzhytska. “If the United States could not provide the support our people need, I might not even be here.” Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) and Nicole Hnatiuk. (Credit: Yuliia Nevmerzhytska) In that tense, uncertain moment, the constituents felt they had to be equally direct. “Our community would not be able to support you anymore if we did not see a ‘yes’ vote on this bill,” Nevmerzhytska recalled Nicole saying. “It was so urgent and such a pressing issue.” Other delegation members explained that the tariff authority was limited, that the administration would have to report its actions to Congress and that lawmakers would retain oversight of waivers and termination decisions. They also argued that the bill was Ukraine’s last realistic opportunity to secure stronger sanctions before the midterm elections. Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) voted yes. A final-hours appeal to a Texas Democrat Wednesday offered Ukrainian advocates one final chance to persuade wavering House Democrats to support the bill. Five hours before voting. At 12:15 p.m. Wednesday, the ACU Texas delegation met with Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas), a longtime supporter of Ukraine, for a hurried conversation as he walked between meetings on Capitol Hill. Veasey’s concerns about the tariff provisions were serious enough that advocates feared he might vote against the bill. “It was a 10 minute meeting and we actually had to walk down the hallway with him. He was very concerned about some components of the bill, specifically the tariffs,” said Olena Jacobs, who co-led the delegation. Jacobs said Veasey had long supported Ukraine and had voted for every previous Ukraine-related measure. On Wednesday, advocates argued that after nearly five years of war, the United States needed to demonstrate global leadership and use severe sanctions to force Russia toward serious negotiations. “Thankfully, the big picture prevailed,” Jacobs said. “He saw the good in sanctioning Russia and just how important it was.” Photo Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) with the ACU Texas delegation. (Credit: Olena Jacobs) When Veasey left, the advocates continued their appeal with his legislative assistant. Jacobs said the delegation’s relationships with staff members, developed over several previous summits, allowed them to keep pressing their case after the congressman departed. “I spoke with her [Rep. Marc Veasey legislative assistant] twice, first when we arrived and were waiting for the congressman, and then I returned to the office and pleaded again,” Jacobs said of a senior staff member. “I reminded her of my personal story, my losses, and how many people want this war to end as soon as possible.” Some Republicans began to doubt Wednesday, Sept 16. 6 hours before voting. Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) had been expected to provide a reliable Republican vote for the sanctions bill. Nellie Petlik, an ACU delegate from Michigan and a constituent in Huizenga’s district, arrived at their meeting expecting an easy commitment. “Honestly, I expected him to be in favor of the bill,” Petlik said. “I was expecting him to say, ‘Yes, no problem. I plan to vote for the bill.’ I was a bit surprised when we met with the representative himself and he said, ‘I’m actually not sure how I’m going to vote today.’ He seemed skeptical that the president would implement the sanctions as written, and he mentioned that the bill gave the president authority to waive them.” The advocates pushed back. Petlik said sanctions experts in the group argued that presidential waivers were common in sanctions legislation. More importantly, they told Huizenga that enacting the measure would give Congress greater authority to oversee how the sanctions were carried out instead of leaving them under executive orders controlled largely by the White House. “We made the argument that by passing this bill, he would have more power to make sure the sanctions were implemented as designed,” Petlik said. Huizenga did not fully explain what was driving his hesitation. Petlik wondered whether the approaching midterm election also weighed on him, particularly the risk that an opponent could portray his support for new tariffs as a vote to raise consumer prices. Other House Republicans had expressed similar concerns about potential political blowback from tariffs. “I do wonder if he was concerned about the tariff authority and worried that an opponent could say he voted to basically raise prices for the American people,” Petlik said. “He didn’t say this to us in the meeting. That’s just a pure guess.” Petlik and other advocates met with Huizenga late Wednesday morning, about six hours before the final vote. With the congressman still undecided, the meeting carried unusual urgency. They were probably among the last constituents to speak with him before he entered the chamber, Petlik said. “I told him, ‘I just came from my hometown in the district. It’s a town of 10,000 people, and I see Ukrainian flags everywhere,’” Petlik recalled. “There’s not a huge Ukrainian community there. These are Americans of Polish, Lithuanian, and German descent who care about this issue because their families, mine included, came from Europe after World War I and World War II.” Petlik delivered a direct message: Support for Ukraine reached well beyond Ukrainian Americans, and voters back home would be watching. “We were probably the last people who talked to him, so I like to think that we made a difference,” she said. Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) ultimately voted for the bill. The most difficult target Even before the summit began, Rachel Smith, head of the Louisiana delegation, had identified Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) as its most difficult target and expected the meeting to unfold in hostile territory. “His track record until Wednesday had been 100 percent voting against anything to help Ukraine. It didn’t matter what it was, he was a no,” she said. Smith had met Higgins once before, in the spring of 2025, and remembered the encounter as unusually confrontational. “He saw that we were on schedule and came out and spoke to us with the intent of sending us out of his office crying,” Smith said. “But we ended up changing his mind enough that he stopped repeating Kremlin propaganda on social media.” By the time Smith’s delegation returned to Higgins’s office during the 2026 summit, however, the political landscape had shifted. During a scheduled meeting Tuesday morning, Smith said a staffer told the group that Higgins had spoken with President Donald Trump about the bill during the weekend. Photo The Louisiana delegation with Henry Keating, a staffer for Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.). (Credit: Sofia Poliakova) “We left the office cautiously optimistic that his loyalty to the president would lead him to vote yes on the bill,” Smith said. “And that’s exactly what happened.” Smith was unequivocal in her interpretation of Higgins’s decision. An unexpected opening with a Ukraine skeptic Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), a MAGA-aligned Republican and longtime Trump ally, has been one of the most vocal opponents of US aid to Ukraine. Yet he had never personally met with the ACU’s Arizona delegation. Oli Nevinska, the delegation’s co-leader, had advocated on Ukraine since 2022 and contacted Gosar’s office twice a year, but the meetings had always been with members of his staff. That relationship began to change after the office hired a new legislative aide, Louis, whom the delegation first met at the April 2026 summit. Nevinska said the new aide was better informed about Ukraine, making subsequent discussions with the office more productive. At the September summit, the delegation was waiting for its scheduled meeting with Louis when Gosar unexpectedly emerged from his office. “I saw him come out of his office and realized that I was not going to simply let him walk away,” Nevinska recalled. Nevinska introduced herself and made the delegation’s case for the sanctions bill. Gosar stayed, turning a routine staff meeting into an impromptu 15-minute conversation with the Arizona advocates. “He said he was glad to meet us and would join the meeting, even though it had not been scheduled,” Nevinska said. “He asked us about Ukraine, about the war, the Russian attacks and the drones. We shared what we knew, including firsthand accounts from our families in Ukraine. And, of course, we asked him to support the sanctions bill.” The meeting ended with an unexpected gesture. Gosar showed the delegation a collection of rocks from space displayed in his office. When Nevinska joked that she intended to keep one, the congressman told her he could not surrender the entire meteorite but he could give her a piece. “He knelt down in front of our delegation and used one stone to break a piece from another,” Nevinska recalled. “Then he gave me the meteorite fragment as a keepsake.” Nevinska carried the fragment back to Ukraine, a small reminder of a meeting neither side had planned. An ally who needed no persuading In Rep. Michael McCaul’s office, the ACU Texas delegation found an ally who needed no persuading. The Republican had introduced the House version of the sanctions legislation and was working to secure its passage. The advocates were unable to meet directly with Rep. Michael McCaul as he was on the House floor preparing for the vote when the delegation arrived, said Anna Berezniak, who led the group. His senior legislative assistant had just five minutes to spare. “She assured us that they were continuing to work until the last minute to get the bill passed,” Berezniak said. “They considered it one of the strongest pieces of legislation supporting Ukraine that could realistically pass Congress.” Photo ACU Texas delegation at the office of Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas). (Credit: Olena Jacobs) McCaul’s senior legislative aide asked the delegation to provide public statements endorsing it. The advocates later shared statements from the Ukrainian Cultural Club of Dallas and 50 States for Ukraine. They came to be heard After clearing both chambers, the bill became the first pro-Ukraine measure enacted by this Congress when President Donald Trump signed it into law on Sept. 18. Goncharov said what had begun as an urgent effort to secure enough votes ended with nearly twice as many Democrats supporting the bill as he had initially counted. He accredited that shift in part to sustained advocacy and arguments that directly addressed lawmakers’ reservations about the bill. “Over 363 meetings with Congressional offices, I feared we would not have sufficient votes for the first procedural vote, and counted we had the support of about 30 Democrats for final passage,” said Eugene Goncharov, director of policy at the American Coalition for Ukraine. “In the end the sanctions bill passed with the support of 58 Democrats, many of them convinced directly through meetings with constituents. Furthermore, as the votes kept coming on the House floor, additional Democrats felt comfortable voting to pass the Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, resulting in a resounding 262-159 final vote.” Behind the roll-call tally was a basic act of representative democracy: constituents sitting across from their elected officials, explaining what was at stake and asking them to act. For ACU’s delegates, support for Ukraine was a priority they carried to Washington from the districts those lawmakers represented.