We could literally break their economy
In the long and unresolved argument over how democracies should confront authoritarian aggression, two visions of American power are now openly competing. Former Vice President Mike Pence is pressing the Senate to pass sweeping secondary sanctions that would make the global cost of doing business with Russia prohibitive, while President Trump pursues direct diplomacy with Putin, betting that engagement rather than economic siege will end the war in Ukraine. The tension between these approaches is not merely tactical — it reflects a deeper disagreement about whether pressure or persuasion is the more honest language of peace.
- Pence is urging the Senate to pass a bipartisan bill that would impose tariffs as high as 500% on nations buying Russian oil or gas, arguing that only economic devastation can force Putin to the table on terms that matter.
- Trump is simultaneously hosting Putin and Zelensky at the White House, pursuing a negotiated settlement through direct diplomacy while criticizing Biden-era restrictions on Ukraine's use of American weapons.
- Democratic senators Warren and Murphy are sounding alarms that Trump's summits, which have produced no cease-fire and no concrete concessions, are handing Putin a stage without extracting any real cost.
- The Senate now faces a defining choice: advance the Graham-Blumenthal sanctions bill, defer to Trump's diplomatic track, or attempt some uneasy hybrid of both — with Ukraine's fate hanging in the balance.
Mike Pence and Donald Trump are pulling in opposite directions on Russia, and the Senate is caught between them. On Thursday, the former vice president appeared on NewsNation to champion a bipartisan bill authored by Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Richard Blumenthal that would impose tariffs as steep as 500 percent on any country purchasing Russian oil or gas. The goal, as Pence framed it, is not punishment for its own sake but leverage — making the global cost of doing business with Moscow so severe that Putin's war machine runs out of money. Blumenthal signaled flexibility on the specific tariff rate but insisted the sanctions had to be, in his word, "bone-crushing."
Trump is operating from an entirely different premise. Last week, the president hosted both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House, along with European leaders, in pursuit of a negotiated peace. He has been openly critical of Biden-era restrictions on Ukraine's use of long-range American weapons, viewing those limits as obstacles rather than safeguards. On Truth Social, he declared that "interesting times are ahead" — projecting confidence that his direct engagement with Putin would yield results where economic pressure has not.
The Democratic response has been pointed. Senator Elizabeth Warren argued that Trump's summits, absent any cease-fire or concrete concessions, amount to theater that benefits Putin more than Ukraine. Senator Chris Murphy called the Alaska meeting between Trump and Putin a "disaster," warning that by sitting down without securing meaningful commitments, Trump had granted the Russian leader a veneer of statesmanship at no cost.
What this moment reveals is a genuine and unresolved argument about how to end the war. Pence's coalition believes economic pain combined with military support creates the conditions for a real settlement. Trump believes direct engagement, unburdened by preconditions, is the faster path. Both claim to want peace. Neither has yet proven their theory. The Senate's decision on the Graham-Blumenthal bill will, in effect, be a vote on which theory of pressure America is willing to back.
Mike Pence and Donald Trump are pulling in opposite directions on Russia, and the Senate is caught in the middle. On Thursday, the former vice president went on NewsNation to make his case for what he called the only realistic path to ending the war in Ukraine: crushing economic sanctions paired with continued military aid to Kyiv. The specific measure he championed, a bipartisan bill led by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democrat Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, would impose tariffs as steep as 500 percent on any country that purchases Russian oil or gas. The idea is straightforward and brutal: make it so expensive for the world to do business with Moscow that Putin's war machine simply runs out of money.
"If we pass those secondary sanctions, Vladimir Putin will understand that we could literally break their economy," Pence said. Blumenthal, who has been negotiating the bill's terms, acknowledged he could accept lower tariff rates, but he insisted the sanctions themselves had to be what he called "bone-crushing"—severe enough to genuinely degrade Russia's ability to wage war. The logic here reflects a particular school of thought about deterrence: that economic pain, combined with the knowledge that the United States will keep arming Ukraine, creates the conditions for negotiation. Pence framed it as leverage, not punishment for its own sake.
But Trump is operating from a different playbook entirely. Last week, the president held a series of meetings at the White House with both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky, along with several European leaders, all aimed at brokering a peace agreement. Trump has been critical of the Biden administration's decision to restrict Ukraine's use of long-range American weapons against Russian targets, viewing those constraints as obstacles to negotiation rather than prudent limits. On Truth Social, Trump wrote that "interesting times are ahead," signaling his confidence that his diplomatic approach would yield results. The two strategies—Pence's economic pressure campaign and Trump's direct negotiation effort—exist in tension, and it is unclear whether they can coexist or whether one will ultimately prevail.
The Democratic response has been sharp. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts argued that Trump's summits with Putin, without concrete concessions or a cease-fire agreement, amount to little more than theater that actually benefits the Russian president. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut was even blunter, calling the recent Alaska meeting between Trump and Putin a "disaster" and an embarrassment. Murphy's concern was that by sitting down with Putin without securing meaningful commitments, Trump had handed the Russian leader a kind of legitimacy—a chance to appear as a statesman negotiating with equals—while Putin faced no real cost for his actions or his denials of war crimes. The summit ended without a cease-fire, which Murphy and others saw as evidence that Trump's approach was not working.
What emerges from this moment is a fundamental disagreement about how to pressure Russia into ending the war. Pence and the bipartisan coalition behind the secondary sanctions bill believe that economic pain, combined with military support for Ukraine, creates the conditions for a negotiated settlement. Trump believes that direct engagement with Putin, without the precondition of crushing sanctions, is the faster route to peace. Both sides claim to want the same outcome. Neither has yet proven their theory correct. The Senate will have to decide whether to pass the Graham-Blumenthal bill, and in doing so, will be making a choice about which approach to back—or whether to attempt some hybrid strategy that incorporates elements of both.
Notable Quotes
If we pass those secondary sanctions, Vladimir Putin will understand that we could literally break their economy— Mike Pence
Sanctions must be bone-crushing to weaken Russia's war machine— Sen. Richard Blumenthal
The summit was a disaster and an embarrassment that allowed Putin to appear legitimate without offering concessions— Sen. Chris Murphy
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Pence think sanctions will work when Trump seems convinced they'll just harden Putin's position?
Pence is betting on a specific kind of pain—economic isolation so severe that continuing the war becomes unsustainable. He's not trying to punish Putin; he's trying to make the math of war impossible. Trump seems to believe that sitting across from Putin, showing respect, creates space for negotiation that sanctions only close off.
But Murphy said the Alaska summit was a disaster. What did Trump actually get out of it?
That's the question nobody can answer yet. The summit ended without a cease-fire, without concessions, without anything concrete. Murphy's worry is that Trump gave Putin something for nothing—the appearance of legitimacy on the world stage—and got nothing in return.
Is there a middle ground here, or are these two approaches fundamentally incompatible?
In theory, you could do both: impose sanctions while negotiating. But politically, they're sending opposite signals. Sanctions say "we're willing to hurt you." Summits without preconditions say "we're willing to deal." Putin gets to choose which message to believe.
What happens if the Senate passes the secondary sanctions bill while Trump is still negotiating?
That's the real test. It would mean Congress is betting against the president's strategy. It would also mean telling Putin that even if Trump wants a deal, there's a cost to refusing one. Whether that strengthens Trump's hand or undermines it depends entirely on what happens next.
And if they don't pass it?
Then Pence loses his leverage argument, and Trump's negotiation strategy becomes the only game in town. But there's no guarantee it works.