Donald Trump’s latest concessions to Vladimir Putin are drawing sharp criticism from top Republicans, with prominent conservative Andrew C. McCarthy calling for Congress to investigate what he describes as the administration’s “aid and comfort” to the Russian leader. McCarthy also warned that Trump’s approach to Russia should be “the last straw” for Americans on both sides of the aisle.
Andrew C. McCarthy, a prominent conservative who wrote a book supporting Trump in 2019 before breaking with him after the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, is now blasting the administration’s handling of Russia as a dangerous betrayal of American interests.
McCarthy argues that the president’s concessions to Moscow—including easing sanctions and imposing restrictions that left Ukraine more vulnerable—demand serious scrutiny. Now, McCarthy wants lawmakers to get answers under oath about whether the administration’s actions have undermined American interests while helping the Russian leader.
“The Trump administration will waive sanctions against Russia (in likely violation of federal law) in exchange for a relatively trivial amount of Russian diesel fuel that would have negligible impact on sky-high diesel prices,” McCarthy wrote.
The criticism strikes at the heart of Trump’s argument that easing restrictions on Russian energy could help bring down fuel costs. McCarthy’s position is that the move offers little relief to American consumers while giving Putin an economic and political win.
And he isn’t buying the administration’s explanation for the energy ceasefire, either.
Trump announced an energy ceasefire on October 11, presenting it as part of his effort to bring the war closer to an end. Yet the arrangement has largely failed to stop attacks on energy infrastructure.
McCarthy called the ceasefire “rigged against Ukraine.” He argued that the problem became especially clear after the White House clarified that the arrangement applied only to oil refineries.
In his report, McCarthy noted that Ukraine has no operational oil refineries left after Russia bombed its last one four years ago. He argues the arrangement places a particularly awkward burden on Kyiv while leaving Moscow with more room to continue its attacks.
Ukraine has continued to report Russian strikes on its energy facilities and cities, raising fears about the country’s ability to withstand another winter under bombardment.
Trump, meanwhile, has blamed Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries for contributing to high fuel prices. Critics argue that this explanation overlooks other major pressures on energy markets, including the conflict involving Iran and disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz.
McCarthy says the administration is getting the balance badly wrong. The larger issue is that Trump appears willing to offer concessions to Putin without securing a comparable commitment from Russia to stop its attacks.
He also accused Russia of supporting Iran in its conflict with the United States by providing drones and intelligence, while strengthening its ties with China and North Korea.
“Russia is a pillar of an anti-American axis led by China and joined by Iran and North Korea,” McCarthy wrote.
He followed that with an even sharper accusation: “While Trump embraces Putin, Putin aids and abets the ‘Death to America’ regime.”
The contrast is central to McCarthy’s argument. While Trump is offering concessions to the Russian president, McCarthy says, Moscow is helping countries hostile to Washington.
McCarthy is not the only Republican raising alarms about Trump’s approach to Russia.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas called the president’s actions “reckless,” pointing to Putin’s long-standing ambition to restore Russia’s former power.
Cornyn cited Putin’s description of the Soviet Union’s collapse as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century” and his claim that Russia was “robbed” during its breakup.
The message was clear: Republicans should not underestimate Putin’s ambitions or assume that concessions will persuade him to abandon them.
Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina was even more direct about the decision to waive sanctions on Russian diesel.
He called the move “beyond irresponsible” and argued that Trump was looking in the wrong place for a solution to high energy prices.
“If the president wants to actually bring down energy prices, he can do it by solving the Iran problem,” Tillis wrote on X. “Not by doing a solid for Vladimir Putin.”
The criticism exposes a growing tension in Trump’s foreign policy. He has made ending the war in Ukraine a central objective, but his effort to keep negotiations alive has prompted questions about whether Russia is actually calling the shots.
Republican critics like McCarthy, Cornyn and Tillis are questioning whether the current approach is simply rewarding Moscow while Ukraine continues to suffer attacks.
