Senator Susan Collins joined Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Thom Tillis (R-NC) and John Curtis (R-UT) on 11 October in a joint statement opposing Russian diesel fuel imports to the United States. [E3]
President Donald Trump said Russian President Vladimir Putin had agreed to release 300,000 tonnes of diesel immediately, another 500,000 tonnes in November, and 1 million tonnes in December. [E1] This paper's 11 October forecast put a named loading of that first step at 42% by 16 October. [E10] No named tanker, port or buyer has been published.
Treasury announced Friday that it would temporarily waive sanctions on Russia's energy sector to "allow the supply of Russian diesel to the global market." [E2]
Collins's group said Congress explicitly banned Russian energy imports in 2022 "to prevent American dollars from financing Putin’s brutal war against Ukraine," and that the United States should not import oil from Russia until it ends its aggression against Ukraine and ceases threats against NATO allies. [E4]
President Trump's decision to allow Russian diesel imports to the United States "runs directly counter to that law," the senators said, and the administration had failed to consult with Congress or submit any explanation to justify its decision as required by statute. [E5]
A bipartisan group of six senators is calling on the administration to "immediately reverse course" on a plan to purchase diesel from Russia as part of an effort to lower high fuel prices, AP reported. [E6] Collins's page names seven senators; AP counted six.
Tillis, in an interview that aired Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, said there is a legitimate case for saying the president is not following the law if the administration goes through with its diesel purchase plan. [E7]
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said Trump is focused on reducing the cost of energy when asked whether the president's action would be in violation of U.S. law. "The president is balancing and has to make tough decisions" [E8]
Reuters reported from three people familiar with a Miami meeting that Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner had explained the Russian diesel concession to Ukrainian officials as part of a strategy to induce Moscow back into negotiations. [E9]
The desk's reading. There is a 67% probability that no named official source or named news outlet reports, by 16:00 UTC on 16 October 2026, that the first announced diesel step has been loaded onto tankers under the US Treasury energy-sector waiver announced on 9 October 2026. The 67% is the no-posted-loading call. A path on which the cargo moves and no named report arrives still settles yes. The start is this paper's 11 October posted-loading call by the same deadline. Collins's bipartisan statement that the import runs directly counter to the 2022 statute, the failure to consult Congress or submit the explanation the statute requires, and Tillis's case that proceeding would not follow the law, move it up. The first step was announced as immediate, still with no named tanker, port or buyer. Reuters's account that the concession was explained in Miami as a way to bring Moscow back to talks moves it up, because the waiver then reads as a retractable chip. Barrasso's line that the president is balancing, and Treasury's Friday waiver, move it down. The competing reading is that Senate statements do not dock a ship, the waiver is the live license, and the first step will still appear as a permitted cargo this week. A named loading under the waiver would move the call down. A court order, an OFAC retraction, or an administration reversal citing the 2022 ban would move it up. Silence by the deadline settles yes. The diesel deal is now an execution-risk problem, not a loading calendar.
The next test. A named official source or named news outlet reports, by 16:00 UTC on 16 October 2026, that the first announced diesel step has been loaded onto tankers under the US Treasury energy-sector waiver announced on 9 October 2026. That report overturns the reading. Silence, or another restatement of the calendar with no hull, confirms it. No such report by that deadline settles yes.