After Trump-Putin call, GOP warns White House on sanctions

Leading Republicans told the new administration that they are opposed to lifting sanctions against Russia.

Mark Makela/Reuters
Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday.

A day after Donald Trump's first call as president with Russia's Vladimir Putin, leading congressional Republicans made clear they oppose any attempt by the new administration to wipe away U.S. penalties imposed on Moscow by the Obama White House.

"I'm absolutely opposed to lifting sanctions on the Russians," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Sunday. "If anything, we ought to be looking at increasing them."

The White House said the issue of sanctions wasn't discussed during Saturday's nearly one-hour conversation, which both sides described in positive terms.

Trump, who has said he wants a better relationship with Russia, has been noncommittal on the matter, and his spokesman, Sean Spicer, said Sunday that no decision has been made.

The Obama administration hit Russia with several rounds of punishing sanctions in 2014 in response to its annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region and support for separatists fighting government forces in eastern Ukraine. These penalties targeted sectors of Russia's economy, major companies and people in Putin's inner circle.

Shortly before leaving office, Obama also ordered sanctions on Russian spy agencies, closed two Russian compounds in the U.S. and expelled 35 diplomats that he said were really spies. These sanctions followed an assessment by U.S. intelligence that Moscow meddled in the 2016 election to help Trump.

Sen. Rob Portman, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it would be a "huge mistake for American foreign policy" to remove the sanctions "until the reasons those sanctions were put in place are resolved."

Portman, R-Ohio, is part of a bipartisan group of senators who have introduced legislation that would extend the sanctions and put them into law.

McConnell held back on supporting that effort: "Well, we'll wait and see. I hope the president will follow our advice and not be lifting the sanctions on the Russians."

White House chief of staff Reince Priebus refused to say whether the subject of Russian interference in the election was raised during Saturday's call.

"What I will tell you is that it was a positive call," Priebus said. The two leaders discussed working together in eradicating the Islamic State group and "resolving problems around the world, including Syria," he said Sunday, going little beyond the brief White House statement issued shortly after the call.

The Kremlin statement was broader. Although there was no mention of the sanctions, it said Putin and Trump discussed the importance of "restoring mutually beneficial trade and economic ties between business circles of the two countries."

The Kremlin also said Putin and Trump spoke in particular about international issues, including the fight against terrorism, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iran's nuclear program, the situation on the Korean peninsula and the Ukraine crisis.

Moscow has applauded Trump's promises to rebuild U.S.-Russian relations, which have been pushed to their worst level since the Cold War.

Trump on Saturday signed a presidential memorandum on a plan to defeat the Islamic State group. It included the possibility of teaming up with "new coalition partners" and suggested pairing up with Russia wasn't off the table.

Trump's tempered approach to U.S.-Russia relations has raised concern among several European allies who believe keeping Russia in check is essential to regional security.

McConnell and Spicer appeared on ABC's "This Week." Portman was on CNN's "State of the Union," while Priebus spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.