The House on Wednesday passed a broad package of sanctions targeting Russian officials and key pillars of its economy as lawmakers look to deprive President Vladimir Putin of the financial resources needed to wage the war against Ukraine.

The bill is named after the late Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who spent more than a year negotiating it. The measure was approved in a 262-159 vote and now heads to President Donald Trump to be signed into law.

The legislation represents the most ambitious effort to support Ukraine since Trump's return to the White House and would break nearly two years of relative gridlock on the issue following a 2024 emergency aid package. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been pushing for the bill's passage and made a direct appeal to senators shortly before they passed it last month.

The measure sanctions Russian officials, banks and a shadow fleet of tankers that keeps Russian energy moving. It also directs Trump to impose up to 100% tariffs on the top five importers of Russian oil or natural gas, with an exception for countries that import less than 15% of Russia's natural gas exports and have taken significant steps to reduce those imports.

“These countries have a choice to make about whether they will continue to sustain Putin's aggression,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas.

Supporters said the tariff provisions are aimed at deterring China and India from purchasing Russian energy, but critics of the bill said they fear Trump will use the legislation to target allies in the European Union and elsewhere. Americans, they warned, would pay the price for such tariffs through higher prices at the cash register.

“This president has always said he loves tariffs,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y. “And we know the history of what he's done with reference to tariffs to our European allies, and our allies everywhere.”

Democrats were divided on the bill, despite overwhelming support in the caucus for aiding Ukraine. Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told colleagues they can't control what the president does, but they can stand up and declare where they are on the war.

“If we fail to pass this bill, there will be cheers in the Kremlin and tears in Kyiv,” Hoyer said.

But Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., predicted Ukraine supporters would come to regret voting for the bill.

“Yes they will be able to say 'we stood with Ukraine' in the immediate aftermath,” Beyer said. “But when Donald Trump hits our allies with new tariffs and waives sanctions on Russia, the propaganda victory for Putin will be lasting, and the damage will be embedded in U.S. law.”

Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, speaking in opposition to the bill, said Democrats would continue to support the Ukrainian people until victory is won, “but this bill does not provide a path to secure that.”

In all, 58 Democrats broke with Jeffries and voted for the bill, while 152 voted against it. Among Republicans, 203 voted yes while seven voted against it.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., celebrated the vote and highlighted the additional tariff power it provides the president.

“For too long, Putin has bankrolled this devastating war with money and resources from countries willing to look the other way, and today, that ends,” Johnson said.

Congress has struggled to ensure the flow of U.S. funding and munitions to Ukraine as Republican support for spending billions of dollars more on the effort has waned. Trump routinely derided the Ukraine aid while campaigning for the White House and insisted that, if elected, he would quickly end the war launched by Moscow's February 2022 invasion.

It took Graham essentially a full year to bring Trump on board with the Russia sanctions package. Eventually, Trump gave a nod to the bill after it included his push for a five-year extension of existing sanctions on Iran. Republicans speaking on the House floor in advance of Wednesday's vote were overwhelmingly supportive of the package.

President Donald Trump on Monday threatened to block the opening of a new Canadian-built bridge across the Detroit River, demanding that Canada turn over at least half of the ownership of the bridge and agree to other unspecified demands in his latest salvo over cross-border trade issues.

“We will start negotiations, IMMEDIATELY. With all that we have given them, we should own, perhaps, at least one half of this asset,” Trump said in a lengthy social media post, complaining that the United States would get nothing from the bridge and that Canada did not use U.S. steel to built it.

The Gordie Howe International Bridge, named after a Canadian hockey star who played for the Detroit Red Wings for 25 seasons, had been expected to open in early 2026, according to information on the project’s website. The project was negotiated by former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder — a Republican — and paid for by the Canadian government to help ease congestion over the existing Ambassador Bridge and Detroit-Windsor tunnel. Work has been underway since 2018.

It’s unclear how Trump would seek to block the bridge from being opened, and the White House did not immediately return a request for comment on more details. The Canadian Embassy in Washington also did not immediately return a request for comment.

Trump’s threat comes as the relationship between the U.S. and Canada increasingly sours during the U.S. president’s second term. The United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement is up for review this year, and Trump has been taking a hard-line position ahead of those talks, including by issuing new tariff threats.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, meanwhile, has spoken out on the world stage against economic coercion by the United States.

“So to shoot yourself in the foot and threaten the Gordie Howe Bridge means that this guy has completely lost the plot on what’s good for us versus just what’s spite against the Canadians,” Slotkin said.

Michigan, a swing state that Trump carried in both 2016 and 2024, has so far largely avoided the brunt of his second-term crackdown, which has targeted blue states with aggressive immigration raids and cuts to federal funding for major infrastructure projects.

Trump and Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer have also maintained an unusually cordial relationship, with the president publicly praising her during an Oval Office appearance last April. The two also shared a hug last year ahead of Trump’s announcement of a new fighter jet mission for an Air National Guard base in Michigan.

While Canada paid for the project, the bridge will be operated under a joint ownership agreement between Michigan and Canada, said Stacey LaRouche, press secretary to Whitmer.

Rep. Shri Thanedar, the Democratic House representative of Detroit, said blocking the bridge would be “crazy” and said Trump’s attacks on Canada weren’t good for business or jobs. “The bridge is going to help Michigan’s economy. There’s so much commerce between Michigan and Canada. They’re one of our biggest partners,” Thanedar said.

Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell of Ann Arbor brushed aside the president’s threat, saying she’s looking forward to the bridge’s opening later in the spring. “And I’ll be there,” Dingell said.

The eldest son of Norway’s crown princess has been arrested, just before his trial opens on charges including rape in a case that has been an embarrassment to the royal family, police said Monday.

Marius Borg Høiby was arrested on Sunday evening and is accused of assault, threats with a knife and violation of a restraining order, police said in a statement. They requested four weeks’ detention on grounds of risk of reoffending. His lawyers couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

On Tuesday, he’s due to go on trial at the Oslo district court. The indictment includes 38 counts, including rape, abuse in a close relationship against one former partner, acts of violence against another and transporting 3.5 kilograms (7.7 pounds) of marijuana. Other charges include making death threats and traffic violations.

Høiby has been under scrutiny since he was repeatedly arrested in 2024 on various allegations of wrongdoing. He was indicted in August, but had been free pending trial until Sunday.

Høiby is the son of Crown Princess Mette-Marit from a previous relationship and stepson of the heir to the throne, Crown Prince Haakon. He has no royal title or official duties.

The indictment centers on four alleged rapes between 2018 and November 2024; alleged violence and threats against a former partner between the summer of 2022 and the fall of 2023; and two alleged acts of violence against a subsequent partner, along with violations of a restraining order.

Høiby’s defense team has said that he “denies all charges of sexual abuse, as well as the majority of the charges regarding violence.”

Haakon said last week that he and Mette-Marit don’t plan to attend court and that the royal house doesn’t intend to comment during the proceedings.

He emphasized that Høiby isn’t part of the royal house and that, as a citizen of Norway, he has the same responsibilities and rights as all others. He said that he’s confident that all concerned will make the trial as orderly, proper and fair as possible.

A South Korean court sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to five years in prison Friday in the first verdict from eight criminal trials over the martial law debacle that forced him out of office and other allegations.

Yoon was impeached, arrested and dismissed as president after his short-lived imposition of martial law in December 2024 triggered huge public protests calling for his ouster.

The most significant criminal charge against him alleges that his martial law enforcement amounted to a rebellion, An independent counsel has requested the death sentence over that charge, and the Seoul Central District Court will decide on that in a ruling on Feb. 19.

Yoon has maintained he didn’t intend to place the country under military rule for an extended period, saying his decree was only meant to inform the people about the danger of the liberal-controlled parliament obstructing his agenda. But investigators have viewed Yoon’s decree as an attempt to bolster and prolong his rule, charging him with rebellion, abuse of power and other criminal offenses.

In Friday’s case, the Seoul court sentenced Yoon for defying attempts to detain him and fabricating the martial law proclamation. He was also sentenced for sidestepping a legally mandated full Cabinet meeting, which deprived some Cabinet members who were not convened of their rights to deliberate on his decree.

Judge Baek Dae-hyun said in the televised ruling that imposing “a heavy punishment” was necessary because Yoon hasn’t shown remorse and has only repeated “hard-to-comprehend excuses.” The judge also said restoring legal systems damaged by Yoon’s action was necessary.

Yoon’s defense team said they will appeal the ruling, which they believe was “politicized” and reflected “the unilateral arguments by the independent counsel.” Yoon’s defense team argued the ruling “oversimplified the boundary between the exercise of the president’s constitutional powers and criminal liability.”

Park SungBae, a lawyer who specializes in criminal law, said there is little chance the court would decide Yoon should face the death penalty in the rebellion case. He said the court will likely issue a life sentence or a sentence of 30 years or more in prison.

South Korea has maintained a de facto moratorium on executions since 1997 and courts rarely hand down death sentences. Park said the court would take into account that Yoon’s decree didn’t cause casualties and didn’t last long, although Yoon hasn’t shown genuine remorse for his action.

South Korea has a history of pardoning former presidents who were jailed over diverse crimes in the name of promoting national unity. Those pardoned include strongman Chun Doo-hwan, who received the death penalty at a district court over his 1979 coup, the bloody 1980 crackdowns of pro-democracy protests that killed about 200 people, and other crimes.

Even if Yoon is spared the death penalty or life imprisonment at the rebellion trial, he may still face other prison sentences in the multiple smaller trials he faces.

Some observers say Yoon is likely retaining a defiant attitude in the ongoing trials to maintain his support base in the belief that he cannot avoid a lengthy sentence but could be pardoned in the future.

On the night of Dec. 3, 2024, Yoon abruptly declared martial law in a televised speech, saying he would eliminate “anti-state forces” and protect “the constitutional democratic order.” Yoon sent troops and police officers to encircle the National Assembly, but many apparently didn’t aggressively cordon off the area, allowing enough lawmakers to get into an assembly hall to vote down Yoon’s decree.

No major violence occurred, but Yoon’s decree caused the biggest political crisis in South Korea in decades and rattled its diplomacy and financial markets. For many, his decree, the first of its kind in more than 40 years in South Korea, brought back harrowing memories of past dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s, when military-backed leaders used martial law and emergency measures to deploy soldiers and tanks on the streets to suppress demonstrations.

After Yoon’s ouster, his liberal rival Lee Jae Myung became president via a snap election last June. After taking office, Lee appointed three independent counsels to look into allegations involving Yoon, his wife and associates.

Yoon’s other trials deal with charges like ordering drone flights over North Korea to deliberately inflame animosities to look for a pretext to declare martial law. Other charges accuse Yoon of manipulating the investigation into a marine’s drowning in 2023 and receiving free opinion surveys from an election broker in return for a political favor.