S-2918-119
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 243.
Sponsored by Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
What it does
This bill would amend the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians (REPO) Act to improve how frozen Russian sovereign assets are managed and transferred to Ukraine. It would authorize the President to move Russian assets into an interest-bearing Ukraine Support Fund without formally confiscating them, require the Treasury Secretary to invest idle fund balances in U.S. government obligations, and direct the Secretary of State to obligate at least $250 million from the fund to Ukraine every 90 days. It would also require the President to report to Congress on where Russian sovereign assets are located worldwide and direct U.S. diplomats to encourage allied nations to repurpose at least 5% of Russian assets in their jurisdictions quarterly for Ukraine's benefit.
Who benefits
Ukrainian citizens and the Ukrainian government, which would receive more regular and predictable financial assistance. U.S. and allied defense contractors and suppliers whose products may be purchased with disbursed funds. European financial institutions holding Russian assets that gain a clearer legal framework for asset transfers. Allied governments (G7, EU, Australia) that benefit from a coordinated multilateral approach. U.S. foreign policy officials who gain clearer statutory authority and reporting tools.
Who is hurt
Russia and Russian state entities whose sovereign assets — estimated at approximately $300 billion globally — would be further encumbered or transferred. U.S. taxpayers who bear indirect risk if asset seizures trigger retaliatory economic measures or legal challenges that affect U.S. financial standing. Foreign investors and sovereign wealth funds globally who may view the precedent of seizing sovereign assets as a risk to their own holdings in Western financial systems. U.S. financial institutions that could face reciprocal actions or reputational risk in international markets. Countries holding Russian assets that may face diplomatic pressure to act against their own legal or political preferences.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Russia holds an estimated $300 billion in frozen sovereign assets in Western financial systems, and that these funds — not U.S. taxpayers — should bear the cost of rebuilding Ukraine. They contend that the OSCE Porto Declaration, adopted unanimously in July 2025, demonstrates broad multilateral consensus for repurposing these assets, and that the bill's quarterly disbursement schedule and investment requirements ensure funds are deployed efficiently rather than sitting idle. They further argue that codifying a regular $250 million disbursement cycle provides Ukraine with predictable support that strengthens its negotiating position and long-term stability.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that seizing sovereign assets — even those of an aggressor state — sets a dangerous precedent that could undermine confidence in the U.S. dollar and Western financial systems as safe havens for foreign reserves, potentially accelerating de-dollarization. They contend that the mandatory quarterly disbursement schedule constrains presidential flexibility in diplomacy and may complicate ongoing or future peace negotiations by locking in a statutory commitment to one party. They also argue that the legal basis for transferring assets without formal confiscation is untested and could expose the U.S. government to significant international arbitration liability.
Constitutional context
The Foreign Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and Congress's appropriations power support legislative direction over how seized foreign assets are managed and disbursed. However, the bill also touches the President's Commander-in-Chief and foreign affairs powers — particularly the executive's broad discretion over sanctions and asset management under IEEPA. The bill's diplomatic engagement provisions are framed as a "sense of Congress," which avoids directly overriding the President's exclusive recognition and foreign relations powers affirmed in Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015).
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by mandating reporting requirements and setting a minimum disbursement schedule; the executive branch retains discretion over the timing and form of diplomatic engagement, and the President retains authority over asset transfers, with judicial review expanded by Section 7 to cover the entire REPO Act division rather than a single section.
Historical precedent
The original REPO Act (2024, P.L. 118-50) first authorized the seizure and transfer of Russian sovereign assets to Ukraine; this bill amends that framework, making it the first significant legislative refinement of that novel asset-seizure mechanism.