HB 4346, the PEACE Act of 2025, is a sanctions-and-assets bill aimed at pressuring the Russian Federation to end its war against Ukraine. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations within 180 days that would prohibit, or place strict conditions on, U.S. correspondent accounts and payable-through accounts for foreign financial institutions that knowingly provide significant financial services to certain sanctioned Russian persons, Russian financial institutions, entities in designated Russian energy sectors, and other persons the Treasury identifies as operating in Russia’s energy sector.
The bill also requires Treasury to report to Congress on whether Gazprom, Rosneft, and Lukoil qualify as covered foreign persons under the bill’s sanctions framework. In addition, it authorizes the seizure, confiscation, transfer, or vesting of certain Russian sovereign assets held by U.S. financial institutions and directs the resulting funds into the Ukraine Support Fund for use supporting Ukraine, including for defense articles. The measure includes civil and criminal penalties for violations, limited presidential waiver authority, and a termination provision that ends the act if Russia ceases destabilizing activities or after five years.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would expand U.S. sanctions law by creating mandatory Treasury action against foreign financial institutions that facilitate significant business for designated Russian actors, including entities tied to Russia’s energy sector. It would also strengthen the federal government’s authority to immobilize and redirect certain Russian assets held in the United States, channeling those funds to Ukraine-related support purposes. The bill would affect foreign banks, Russian state-linked companies, U.S. financial institutions holding Russian assets, and Treasury’s sanctions administration and enforcement functions.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill is framed as a strong bipartisan response to Russia’s continued attacks on Ukraine and as a tool to support a negotiated peace. The bill was introduced by Representatives Nunn and Gottheimer and later gained additional sponsors, indicating some cross-party support. No committee transcript or recorded vote is provided, so the overall sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s purpose and sponsorship: generally favorable toward tougher sanctions and asset measures against Russia.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the scope and severity of the sanctions and asset-transfer provisions. The bill would penalize foreign financial institutions that do business with sanctioned Russian actors, which could raise concerns about secondary sanctions, financial-market disruption, and enforcement burden. The asset-seizure provisions may also be controversial because they involve transferring Russian state-linked funds to support Ukraine, a step that can raise legal, diplomatic, and international-law questions. The waiver provisions give the President some flexibility, but the bill still imposes significant mandatory action and reporting requirements on Treasury.