— U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Sep. 7 urged the European Union to join Washington in tightening economic pressure on Moscow by considering additional sanctions and secondary tariffs on countries that import Russian crude. Bessent argued the measures could hasten a sharp downturn in Russia’s economy and push President Vladimir Putin toward negotiations, remarks that followed Russia’s largest aerial assault since the war began and came after President Trump’s recent meetings with both Mr. Putin and visiting European and Ukrainian leaders.
Key Takeaways
- The Treasury secretary publicly urged the EU to coordinate with the U.S. on extra sanctions and secondary tariffs targeting buyers of Russian oil, comments reported by NBC News on Sep. 7, 2025.
- The Trump administration has already applied an extra 25% tariff on India’s Russian oil purchases; combined measures now total 50% tariff exposure for India, one of the highest rates imposed on any trading partner.
- Bessent framed the situation as a “race” between Ukraine’s military endurance and the resilience of the Russian economy, saying further allied measures could precipitate a collapse of Moscow’s revenues.
- His comments followed what U.S. officials described as Russia’s most extensive aerial attack since the start of the war, intensifying calls in Washington to escalate economic pressure.
- The Treasury official also said the administration expects to prevail in a Supreme Court challenge to a lower-court decision limiting some of the president’s tariff powers.
- If broadly adopted, secondary tariffs would target third-party buyers (not only Russia), raising diplomatic and economic friction with affected nations and regions.
- Experts caution the effectiveness of secondary penalties depends on enforcement scope, availability of alternative suppliers, and global oil market dynamics.
Background
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the United States and its allies have used sanctions and trade restrictions to try to curtail Moscow’s energy revenues. Washington has periodically expanded measures to include not only direct sanctions on Russian entities but also penalties aimed at intermediaries and customers that facilitate Russian exports. The Trump administration’s recent tariff moves represent a more aggressive use of trade tools to influence third countries’ purchasing choices.
India emerged as a focal point after continuing purchases of discounted Russian crude; the U.S. responded by imposing an additional 25% tariff, bringing the cumulative trade barriers affecting India to roughly 50% under current U.S. measures. Those moves are unprecedented in scale for a major trading partner and have triggered diplomatic pushback from New Delhi. Meanwhile, European capitals have been divided over measures that would hit their own energy security or strain relations with key trade partners.
Main Event
On Sep. 7, 2025, in an interview referenced by NBC News, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged closer transatlantic coordination to impose secondary tariffs on countries that continue to import Russian oil. He argued that coordinated action could meaningfully reduce Moscow’s revenue stream and increase pressure on the Kremlin to seek a political solution. Bessent said the U.S. was prepared to expand punitive measures but that success hinged on European partners matching U.S. resolve.
The remarks came in the immediate aftermath of what U.S. officials described as Russia’s most extensive aerial assault since the conflict began. U.S. and allied leaders have characterized the attack as an escalation that underlined the need to tighten economic restrictions on Moscow. Bessent linked those security developments to the timing of the proposed trade measures, suggesting the two tracks—military and economic—are interconnected.
The administration’s tariff posture has a domestic legal dimension: the Treasury secretary referenced an ongoing Supreme Court petition seeking to overturn a circuit court ruling that limited the president’s broad tariff authority. Bessent expressed confidence in prevailing before the high court, signaling that the executive branch sees judicial validation as essential to sustaining or expanding tariff policy.
Analysis & Implications
If the EU opts to mirror U.S. secondary tariffs, the immediate effect would be to raise the cost for countries buying Russian crude, squeezing Moscow’s export revenues and complicating its fiscal outlook. However, the measure’s success depends on the EU’s unanimity and the willingness of other buyers — including large Asian importers — to accept either higher prices or reduced supplies. Energy market responses (price volatility, rerouting of cargoes) could blunt the intended economic pressure or produce collateral impacts, especially in vulnerable import-dependent economies.
Diplomatically, the U.S. push places allied governments in a bind: align with Washington and risk trade and energy frictions with third countries, or refuse and face potential U.S. penalties or reputational costs. India, already subject to heavy additional U.S. tariffs, has emphasised energy security and market-driven procurement; further U.S. penalties would likely deepen bilateral tensions and complicate cooperation on other strategic issues.
Legally and politically, expanding secondary tariffs raises questions about extraterritoriality and World Trade Organization norms. Governments targeted by secondary measures may pursue countermeasures, file disputes in international fora, or seek alternative energy partnerships. Markets could respond with temporary price spikes followed by an eventual rebalancing as non-Russian crude is redirected or as demand-side adjustments take place.
Comparison & Data
| Item | U.S. Action | Reported Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Tariff on India for Russian oil | +25% additional tariff | Total U.S.-applied tariff exposure ~50% |
| Potential secondary tariffs | Target: third-country buyers | Could raise import costs and complicate trade relations |
| Recent military event | Largest aerial assault by Russia since 2022 | Increased urgency in U.S. policy statements |
The table summarises key numerical and qualitative measures discussed by U.S. officials. While the 25% surcharge on India is concrete, the scope and legal basis for future secondary tariffs remain to be defined, which will determine both their economic reach and international acceptability.
Reactions & Quotes
Officials framed Bessent’s comments as a call for coordinated allied pressure rather than an immediate, predetermined package of measures. Diplomatic actors in Europe signalled cautious consideration, citing the need to safeguard energy supplies and legal scrutiny before matching U.S. steps.
“We are prepared to increase pressure on Russia, but we need our European partners to follow us.”
NBC News quoting Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent
Bessent also described the contest as time-sensitive, tying economic measures to battlefield endurance.
“We are in a race now between how long can the Ukrainian military hold up, versus how long can the Russian economy hold up?”
NBC News quoting Scott Bessent
On legal strategy, the Treasury indicated confidence about pending litigation over tariff authority.
“I am confident that we will win at the Supreme Court.”
NBC News quoting Scott Bessent
Unconfirmed
- Whether the European Union will agree to mirror U.S. secondary tariffs remains undecided; no formal EU package matching the U.S. proposal had been announced as of Sep. 7–8, 2025.
- The claim that secondary tariffs alone would cause the Russian economy to be “in total collapse” is a projection; collapse depends on many variables including state reserves, alternative revenue streams, and domestic policy responses.
Bottom Line
The Treasury secretary’s call for EU alignment marks a clear escalation in U.S. economic strategy toward Russia, shifting more pressure onto third-party buyers rather than focusing solely on direct sanctions. The already-applied 25% surcharge on India — contributing to an effective 50% tariff exposure — demonstrates Washington’s willingness to accept diplomatic friction to curb Russian oil revenues.
Outcomes now hinge on European consensus, legal rulings on executive tariff authority, and how major Asian importers react. If allies coordinate, the measures could materially strain Moscow’s export income; if they do not, the policy risks creating diplomatic rifts and market volatility without decisively altering Russia’s fiscal trajectory.