The diesel supply arrangement reached between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is sparking bipartisan opposition in Washington.

Seven U.S. senators jointly demanded on Sunday that Trump "immediately change his decision," including four Republicans. They argued that allowing Russian diesel back into the U.S. market could violate the 2022 congressional ban on Russian energy imports and generate new energy revenue for Moscow.

Trump announced last Friday that after a call with Putin, Russia agreed to immediately increase diesel supplies to the United States and global markets. According to the arrangement disclosed by Trump, the first batch exceeds 300,000 tons, with about another 500,000 tons to be added in November. The U.S. Treasury Department subsequently issued General License No. 135 through the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), authorizing transactions related to the sale, transportation, discharge and import of Russian-origin diesel.

Trump described the arrangement as a measure to lower U.S. fuel costs, saying high diesel prices have already put pressure on farmers, ranchers and the trucking industry. But after the deal was announced, the controversy quickly expanded from diesel prices to Russia sanctions and presidential authority.

Four Republican Senators Join the Opposition Camp

Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Democratic member Jeanne Shaheen and six other senators issued a joint statement on Sunday demanding the administration withdraw the decision. The Republicans who signed the statement include Maine Senator Susan Collins, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, Utah Senator John Curtis and North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis; on the Democratic side, Richard Blumenthal and Ron Wyden also joined.

These lawmakers pointed out that Congress explicitly banned the import of Russian energy in 2022, aiming to stop U.S. funds from flowing into Russia and being used in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. They argued that the Trump administration not only failed to fully consult Congress before making the decision, but also did not explain to Congress the reasons for lifting restrictions in accordance with relevant laws.

Tillis said further on Sunday that he believed there was "ample reason to think the president did not follow the law," and warned that reopening the market for Russian energy exports could weaken America's leverage to force Moscow to end the conflict.

The dispute also involves a new round of sanctions on Russia that took effect just last month. The bill was long promoted by the late Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, and one of its goals was to limit Russia's ability to earn war revenue through oil and gas exports. The Trump administration's relaxation of diesel transaction restrictions is seen by some Republican lawmakers as conflicting with the policy direction of that legislation.

Treasury Secretary Bessent defended the White House. He said on Sunday that the administration would use existing legal authority to implement the agreement, calling lawmakers' claims that the executive branch lacks the power to carry out the arrangement "incorrect." Senate Republican No. 2 John Barrasso also publicly defended Trump, saying Trump is facing high diesel prices and needs to make a difficult decision between sanctioning Russia and lowering domestic energy costs.

Whether Russian Diesel Can Significantly Lower Prices Remains Questioned

The direct backdrop to the Trump administration's push for the agreement is that U.S. diesel prices remain at historically high levels. As of before the deal was announced, the average U.S. retail diesel price was about $6.28 per gallon, compared with about $3.67 a year earlier. Since the outbreak of the U.S.-Israel war with Iran, U.S. diesel prices have risen by about 70% cumulatively, and high energy costs have spread through agriculture, freight and the food supply chain.

The White House had already taken multiple measures, including expanding the temporary use of red-dyed diesel in highway transportation, pushing allies to release emergency oil and diesel reserves, and at one point considering restricting U.S. diesel exports. On October 5, Trump also signed an executive order allowing eligible highway users to temporarily use tax-exempt red-dyed diesel that was originally mainly intended for agricultural and off-road use.

But energy analysts are cautious about whether the Russia agreement can produce a noticeable effect. The roughly 800,000 tons of diesel promised by Russia is not large relative to U.S. and global diesel consumption. The current refined product tightness is also not caused by the absence of a single supplier, but by a combination of factors including damaged Middle Eastern refineries, the impact of the Russia-Ukraine conflict on Russian refining facilities, and tight global refining capacity. Therefore, additional Russian supply may increase available market cargoes in the short term, but it is unlikely to change the global diesel supply-demand structure on its own.

After Trump announced the agreement, diesel prices briefly fell, but analysts still believe that sustained price declines require a larger-scale recovery in refining supply.

High Oil Price Pressure Collides with Republican Russia Hawks

The controversy also exposes divisions within the Republican Party over Russia policy. In addition to the four Republican senators who joined the joint statement, Nebraska Republican Representative Don Bacon also publicly opposed the agreement, saying it is wrong to increase Russia's energy revenue while Russia continues to attack Ukrainian cities. In competitive congressional districts, some Republican candidates have also begun distancing themselves from Trump's Russian diesel policy.

Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan said the United States should lower prices by increasing domestic energy production rather than importing diesel from Russia; Michigan Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers also said Putin should not be given policy gains. Pennsylvania Republican Representative Brian Fitzpatrick is preparing to push bipartisan legislation aimed at blocking Russian oil purchases and is seeking to use a "discharge petition" procedure to bypass House leadership and force a direct vote.

The Trump administration has not withdrawn the agreement as a result. Treasury's OFAC has officially issued the relevant general license, and the executive branch insists it has the legal authority to implement the transactions.