What Happened
On Wednesday, July 29, 2026, President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House that he wants Congress to add tariffs on Iran to a sanctions bill currently under consideration that targets Russia and those supporting its war against Ukraine.
The bill, named after the late Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who died unexpectedly in mid‑July, combines provisions on Russia and Iran into a single legislative package. A bipartisan group of senators announced on Tuesday, July 28, that they had reached a deal on the combined bill, and the Senate subsequently voted 86‑12 on a procedural measure to advance it.
Trump said, “I’d like to see tariffs on Iran. It would make it much stronger,” and claimed that adding the tariffs was “what Lindsey wanted.” He made the request despite noting that U.S. imports from Iran were “trivial.”
What the Evidence Establishes
According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the United States imported just $1.4 million worth of goods from Iran in 2025, a figure described as trivial by Jonathan Doh, professor of international business at Villanova School of Business.
Trading Economics reported that works of art, collectors’ pieces and antiques made up 55 % of the value of those imports.
Doh told CNBC that existing U.S. sanctions on Iran already prohibit nearly all trade and are “far more impactful” than any tariffs could be, explaining that primary sanctions bar U.S. persons from trading with Iran while secondary sanctions target non‑U.S. entities that do business with Iran.
The sanctions bill would let Trump impose targeted tariffs on goods imported from the top five countries that buy Russian energy and help it evade sanctions, and it would impose economic sanctions on Russia and those supporting its war against Ukraine.
Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States, Olga Stefanishyna, said that Ukraine has communicated evidence of Russian assistance to Iran in attacks on U.S. troops through other channels, and that President Volodymyr Zelensky did not raise this issue during his meeting with President Trump earlier in the week.
Where the Accounts Conflict
Trump argues that adding tariffs on Iran would strengthen the sanctions bill, asserting that the late Senator Graham would have supported the move.
In contrast, Jonathan Doh and other analysts characterize the proposed tariffs as entirely symbolic, given that U.S. trade with Iran is negligible and existing sanctions already block virtually all commerce.
The Hill article notes that Ukraine possesses evidence of Russian aid to Iran in attacks on U.S. forces but did not present that evidence to Trump in their meeting, instead saying the information had been shared through other channels, which conflicts with any implication that Ukraine was withholding vital intelligence.
While the Senate’s 86‑12 procedural vote shows broad bipartisan backing for the core sanctions framework, Trump’s insistence on tariffs introduces a partisan flashpoint, as Democrats have denounced his recent expansion of tariffs on Canada, Brazil and the European Union.
Context and Stakes
The United States has maintained a comprehensive sanctions regime against Iran for decades, and the Treasury Department has sought to further squeeze Tehran’s economy amid the ongoing U.S.–Israel‑led war against Iran that began in late February 2026 and continues without a clear end date.
Senator Lindsey Graham’s death in mid‑July created a vacancy that his sister, Darline Graham, now fills; the bill bearing his name seeks to honor his legacy of advocating tough measures against Russia and Iran.
Trump’s recent tariff actions have included new or announced duties on goods from Canada, Brazil and the 27‑member European Union, moves that Democrats have criticized as economically damaging and politically motivated.
The sanctions bill’s potential failure could weaken the coordinated pressure on Russia’s war effort in Ukraine and reduce leverage over Iran, while its success would reinforce a bipartisan approach to countering two adversarial states.
What to Watch Next
Whether the Senate will accept Trump’s request to add Iran tariffs to the final bill or proceed with the version already agreed upon by the bipartisan group of senators.
Any public statement or executive action from the White House imposing tariffs on Iran outside of the legislative process, which would test the limits of presidential authority under existing trade laws.
The reaction of Iran’s government to the tariff proposal, especially given the ongoing military conflict and the country’s prior interest in sanctions relief as part of a now‑defunct June 2026 ceasefire agreement.
How Democratic leaders in the Senate and House respond, particularly whether they will seek to block the tariff addition or allow a vote that could jeopardize the broader sanctions package.
Bottom Line
President Trump’s call for tariffs on Iran introduces a largely symbolic, politically driven complication to a sanctions bill that already enjoys strong bipartisan support and targets Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Given the minimal volume of U.S.–Iran trade—just $1.4 million in 2025—and the comprehensive nature of existing sanctions, the economic impact of the proposed tariffs would be negligible, but their inclusion could jeopardize legislative cohesion.
The immediate stakes lie in the Senate’s final vote on the bill; if Trump’s demand stalls the legislation, it would signal the limits of his tariff agenda in a closely divided Congress, whereas passage without the tariffs would reinforce a bipartisan national‑security approach.
DECLASSIFIED SOURCE: CNBC Top News (via Real-time Signal Upgrade)
The article says u.s. imports from iran are only $1.4 million for 2025, which makes the push for new tariffs look more like a political stunt than a real trade policy. If the total volume is that low, the administrati...