Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) voiced embarrassment over the Senate’s limited legislative progress since the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed in July 2025. He cited public frustration regarding the cost of living, Iran tensions, and artificial intelligence risks.

Kennedy told reporters on Wednesday that he is "embarrassed" by the lack of achievement. He noted that the public remains upset about multiple issues, including persistent inflation and questions surrounding Iran.

AI Legislation Stalls

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blocked Kennedy’s effort to fast-track a bill requiring advanced AI developers to include emergency "kill switches." Paul argued Congress needs more information before imposing broad regulations and proposed a group to recommend safeguards to the Senate Commerce Committee.

Kennedy warned against delaying action as AI risks grow. He has previously criticized AI data center expansion, urging technology companies to stop demanding taxpayer subsidies and shoulder environmental and financial costs.

Legislative Delays Continue

House Speaker Mike Johnson canceled Thursday’s votes, sending lawmakers home early for the midterm recess. This move avoided a vote on Rep. Thomas Massie’s (R-Ky.) effort to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Johnson had earlier shortened the pre-election session by two weeks. Kennedy expressed doubt in early September that Republicans could significantly address inflation before the November midterm elections.

What the Numbers Show

The legislative gridlock highlights a divergence between public concern and congressional action. Kennedy identified three specific areas of public upset—cost of living, Iran, and AI—yet the Senate failed to advance legislation on any of these fronts during the session. The cancellation of votes by House leadership further underscores the inability to convert these concerns into legislative outcomes before the recess.

The US Senate passed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 on Friday with an 86-11 vote, advancing a bipartisan measure that threatens tariffs of up to 100% on major buyers of Russian oil and gas, including China and India. The legislation aims to pressure Moscow over its war in Ukraine by targeting countries that provide funding for the conflict. This development marks a significant escalation in US policy, potentially impacting global energy trade dynamics and imposing substantial economic penalties on key trading partners.

Vote Breakdown

The bill cleared the Senate with a strong majority, reflecting broad support despite some opposition regarding executive authority. The vote tally is detailed below:

The wide margin indicates strong bipartisan backing for sanctions against Russia, although the measure now moves to the House, which is currently in recess until September.

Key Provisions and Opposition

The legislation seeks to impose sweeping economic penalties on Moscow and nations continuing to purchase Russian energy. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) was among those who opposed the bill, arguing that it grants President Donald Trump excessive authority to impose tariffs unpredictably. "It provides too much room for him to do things that are unpredictable and that actually harms the situation," Hirono stated.

Conversely, supporters viewed the bill as a critical tool for leverage. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who collaborated with the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on the legislation, noted that Graham "would be proud of what we’ve done." Graham, who died on July 11, had been a leading advocate for tougher action against President Vladimir Putin and countries sustaining Russia’s war effort.

What the Numbers Show

The 86-11 vote split highlights a consensus on the need for sanctions against Russia, yet the inclusion of broad tariff powers has drawn criticism from Democrats concerned about executive overreach. The threat of 100% tariffs on top buyers like China and India represents a significant shift from previous measures, aiming to directly cut off funding streams for Moscow’s military operations. This approach underscores the US strategy of using economic statecraft to isolate Russia financially.