CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

The Senate on Tuesday failed to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, falling short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633. The vote, held at about 2:15 p.m. ET, was the first floor test of comprehensive crypto market-structure legislation in the chamber. It was not a vote on final passage. It was a vote on whether debate could even begin. The answer was no, with 50 no votes and 49 yes votes. 

Every Democrat voted against the measure. Three Republicans - Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Josh Hawley of Missouri and Jerry Moran of Kansas - also voted against the measure

The Clarity Act is the market-structure half of the crypto legal framework Congress began building last year, the companion to the GENIUS Act's stablecoin rules. It draws the line between digital assets regulated as commodities under the CFTC and those regulated as securities under the SEC, puts spot trading platforms under a federal registration regime for the first time, and sets statutory terms for self-custody, noncustodial software and rewards on stablecoin balances. It cleared the House last July with 78 Democrats and then spent a year in Senate rewrites.

That result effectively freezes the bill in place with almost no calendar left before the midterms. Republicans control 53 seats. They needed at least seven Democrats, and more if GOP holdouts peeled off over bank or law-enforcement concerns. They did not get them.

The House passed its version 294-134 in July 2025. The Senate Banking Committee reported a version 15-9 in May 2026, with Democrats Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland joining Republicans. Tuesday was supposed to be the moment those committee crossovers turned into a floor coalition. Both Gallego and Alsobrooks voted no on cloture. Instead, the first hurdle became the last one of 2026.

BREAKING: ???? The Crypto CLARITY Act has failed to pass the Senate cloture vote. pic.twitter.com/0VAw1H9Eyl

— Bull Theory (@BullTheoryio) September 15, 2026

Aaaaand, Bitcoin isn't happy.

How the deal collapsed in 48 hours

Senate Republicans released what they called their "last, best and final" text Sunday night. Sens. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Banking Chair Tim Scott of South Carolina, and Agriculture Chair John Boozman of Arkansas said the draft folded in 126 substantive changes requested by Democrats. The package included new ethics language modeled on a Tillis-Gallego proposal, edits to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act for noncustodial developers, Agriculture Committee guardrails on affiliate trading and tribal gaming, and a Treasury "circuit breaker" meant to address bank fears that stablecoin yield would drain community-bank deposits.

Lummis's line was blunt: Democrats got what they wanted; now take yes for an answer.

Democrats did not. Late Monday they sent a counteroffer. According to people familiar with it, they did not reopen the stablecoin-yield fight - sources had described that as a "Republican-only" problem - but they did demand more on ethics (large holdings, dependent children, paid crypto promotions), a narrower BRCA that expressly does not modify criminal law, and tighter Ag-title rules on exchanges and conflicts. Sens. Mark Warner of Virginia, Ruben Gallego of Arizona, and Raphael Warnock of Georgia said the White House-approved ethics language still needed work. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts went further, arguing the enforcement design left the Trump administration too much control and left loopholes around existing presidential crypto interests.

Republicans rejected the counteroffer Tuesday morning. "In response to a significant step in their direction, Democrats have chosen to move the goalposts again," Senate Banking Committee spokesman Jeff Naft said. "Yet we are hearing the same unreasonable asks and the same refusal to take yes for an answer. The final text is public." Lummis's office said the Democratic paper "looks identical to their opening position at the start of recess."

White House Crypto Council Executive Director Patrick Witt had already signaled there was little room left. "If there are any changes, we're talking about punctuation at this point or technical changes," he told Crypto In America on Monday. "I view that as definitely a best and final offer."

Three fights that never closed

Ethics. This was the political core. Democrats wanted restrictions on large crypto holdings by the president, vice president, members of Congress, judges, and family, plus limits on paid promotions. Republicans added language they said tracked the Tillis-Gallego framework and gave state attorneys general a role in enforcement. Critics said it still left gaps around existing ventures tied to the Trump family and put too much enforcement discretion in the Justice Department. Warren and others treated that as disqualifying. The Democrats who had spent months negotiating the bill, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mark Warner, Cory Booker, Raphael Warnock, Ruben Gallego, Angela Alsobrooks and Catherine Cortez Masto, all voted no, according to Crypto In America's Eleanor Terrett.

Developer protections and DeFi. The BRCA language was meant to shield noncustodial software developers from money-transmitter registration. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada has been the Democratic face of that fight. Republicans already stripped explicit criminal safe harbors to satisfy her. Her camp still wanted the provision narrowed and a sentence stating that nothing in it changes criminal law. Industry and GOP negotiators called that a second move of the goalposts.

Banks and stablecoin yield. Eight banking trade groups, including the American Bankers Association and the Independent Community Bankers of America, attacked the new circuit breaker as "not a safeguard at all" because it would fire only after deposits had already left. They wanted tighter bans on interest-like payments on stablecoin balances. The White House Council of Economic Advisers published a tool arguing there is "no meaningful relationship between stablecoin growth and community bank deposit flight." Witt accused the banks of acting in bad faith: "If you oppose the Clarity Act because you just hate crypto, that's fine. Just say that."

That bank fight mattered inside the GOP. Sen. John Curtis of Utah said he would vote to proceed but was a no on final passage. Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Susan Collins of Maine - Collins called the bill a "moving target" and flagged community-bank deposits - were publicly undecided going into the vote. Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Josh Hawley of Missouri were widely expected to oppose the bill on substance. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky returned to the floor Monday after a three-month absence and said he would "do my best to be present for tough votes." Presence was not the same as 60 votes.

What the bill would have done

Clarity is market-structure legislation, the sequel to last year's GENIUS Act on stablecoins. It would split digital-asset oversight between the SEC and the CFTC, keep securities law from being skirted by labeling tokens as something else, set rules for trading platforms, and try to write a statutory floor under self-custody and noncustodial development. Supporters at BlackRock, Fidelity, Schwab, Goldman, and Coinbase argued the alternative is agency-by-agency enforcement with no durable statute. Opponents argued the draft under-regulated conflicts, illicit finance, and bank-deposit competition.

Majority Leader John Thune framed Tuesday as the "next logical step" after GENIUS. Scott called it the day "everyone [had] to put their cards on the table." They did. The table did not have 60 cards on it.

Cloture on a motion to proceed is not a funeral by Senate rules. Leadership can file again. Amendments can be rewritten. A lame-duck session still exists on paper.

The calendar does not. The House has already canceled late-September weeks. The Senate has a short September window, then October campaign recess, then a post-election lame duck that will be defined by midterm results. Prediction markets had already repriced the bill before the roll call: passage-this-year contracts on Polymarket and Kalshi ran between the high teens and the mid-30s in the hours before the vote, depending on the platform and the hour. Analysts at TD Cowen and Capital Alpha had the full-year odds in the same neighborhood.

If the 119th Congress does not pass Clarity, the next Congress writes a new bill. Agencies keep making policy by enforcement and rulemaking. The industry stays in the gap between a House-passed statute and a Senate that could not open debate.

Witt said Monday that whether the bill got 60 votes would be "a political calculation, not a policy calculation." Tuesday proved him right. The policy text was 600-plus pages and a year of talks. The politics were ethics, banks, and a midterm clock. The politics won.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) on Tuesday introduced privileged articles of impeachment against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, accusing him of waging an unauthorized war in Iran, ignoring a congressional directive to end it, conducting extrajudicial killings at sea, retaliating against a U.S. senator, seizing Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro without legal authority, and launching unauthorized operations in Yemen.

Massie read the resolution on the House floor for more than an hour, pushing the day's first vote series to 4 p.m. and a later series to 9:30 p.m., and filed it as a privileged measure, which under House rules requires a vote within two legislative days. Politico reports the resolution's nature forces a vote this week, the House's last before it leaves for the midterms. Republicans can table the resolution. In a GOP-controlled House, it is widely expected to fail.

BREAKING: Rep. Thomas Massie has just moved to impeach Secretary of War Pete Hegseth for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

?? pic.twitter.com/TCnZ6sb4VD

— Andrew Kolvet (@AndrewKolvet) September 15, 2026

The move is unprecedented: a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee attempting to impeach a Cabinet secretary in a Republican administration. Massie is a lame-duck lawmaker. He lost his May primary to Trump-backed challenger Ed Gallrein after a public feud in which Hegseth traveled to Kentucky to campaign against him.

"By engaging in hostilities in Iran for more than 90 days without congressional authorization, Secretary Hegseth is breaking the law and must be held accountable," Massie said in a statement. "Secretary Hegseth's constitutional violations extend beyond the illegal war in Iran. He is abusing the power of his office to ignore congressional war powers resolutions, to kidnap foreign leaders, and to intimidate critics of the Trump administration by retaliating against them for exercising free speech."

The full text is posted on Massie's official House site. The resolution refers to Hegseth as "Secretary of Defense (also referred to as Secretary of War by the administration)."

The eight articles

Massie's resolution lists eight charges. The first three concern the Iran war and the 1973 War Powers Resolution. The remaining five cover other operations and alleged abuses of office.

Article I - Waging war in contravention of War Powers Resolution §2(c)

Massie charges that Hegseth directed U.S. forces into hostilities against Iran on February 28, 2026, without a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, an attack on the United States, or an imminent threat. The article cites §2(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. §1541(c)), which limits the president's power to introduce forces into hostilities to those three circumstances. It quotes a March 17 resignation letter from then-National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent: "I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation." The article argues the war was unlawful from its first day.

Article II - Waging war in contravention of War Powers Resolution §5(c)

This article focuses on Hegseth's refusal to obey H. Con. Res. 86, which both chambers passed in June directing the president, under §5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove U.S. forces from unauthorized hostilities with Iran. The House approved the concurrent resolution 215-208 on June 3; the Senate agreed 50-48 on June 23. Massie was the only House Republican cosponsor. Four House Republicans voted yes: Massie, Tom Barrett (Mich.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.). The White House treated the measure as nonbinding and did not withdraw forces.

Article III - Waging war in contravention of War Powers Resolution §5(b)

Section 5(b) requires the president to terminate unauthorized hostilities within 60 days of notification to Congress, with a possible 30-day withdrawal window. Hostilities began February 28; the 60-day mark was about May 1. The administration argued that an April 7 ceasefire "terminated" hostilities and reset or paused the clock. Massie calls that a legal fiction and says Hegseth treated mandatory statutory deadlines as discretionary. Operations, blockades, and later strikes continued.

Article IV - Ignoring laws that minimize civilian casualties

The article accuses Hegseth of disregarding statutes and rules intended to limit civilian harm in Iran and elsewhere. Democratic articles filed in April by Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) had cited the February 28 bombing of a girls' school in Minab, Iran, and large-scale destruction of civilian infrastructure. Massie's version is framed more generally as a failure to apply civilian-protection law.

Article V - Extrajudicial killings

This charge concerns Operation Southern Spear, the campaign of lethal strikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific that began September 2, 2025. Massie says Hegseth replaced maritime law enforcement with unauthorized military targeting, resulting in at least 221 deaths. The article also alleges denial of quarter, secondary strikes on survivors, failure to rescue shipwrecked persons, and the invention of "artificial legal authorities" for the campaign. The administration says the boats belong to designated "narco-terrorist" groups and that the United States is in an armed conflict with cartels. Human Rights Watch, WOLA, and U.N. experts have called the strikes extrajudicial killings.

Article VI - Suppressing free speech

Massie accuses Hegseth of using Defense Department authority to retaliate against Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired Navy captain and astronaut, for a November 2025 video in which Kelly and five other Democratic veterans told service members they may refuse illegal orders. Hegseth issued a formal letter of censure in January 2026, entered it into Kelly's personnel file, and opened a process that could reduce Kelly's retired rank and pension. Trump called the video "seditious" and suggested the lawmakers should be arrested. Kelly sued the Pentagon. Massie frames the censure as intimidation of constitutionally protected speech.

Article VII - Kidnapping of a sovereign foreign leader

This article concerns Operation Absolute Resolve, the January 3, 2026, raid in Caracas that seized Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores and extracted them to U.S. custody aboard USS Iwo Jima. The administration described the mission as a law-enforcement apprehension on existing narco-terrorism indictments, not a war. It involved more than 150 aircraft, special operations forces, and supporting strikes. Massie charges that Hegseth directed the operation without constitutional or statutory authority to seize a sitting head of state. Venezuelan and Cuban casualties were reported; seven U.S. service members were injured.

Article VIII - Unlawful war in Yemen

The last article charges Hegseth with initiating Operation Rough Rider without congressional authorization or an imminent threat to the United States, violating war-powers reporting rules, and conducting strikes that killed civilians and hit rescuers and other protected persons.

Each article concludes that Hegseth "will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office" and warrants impeachment, trial, removal, and disqualification from future office.

How we got here: the Iran war and the 60-day clock

The legal core of Massie's case is the War Powers Resolution of 1973, enacted over President Nixon's veto after Vietnam. In brief:

• The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing forces into hostilities.
• Absent a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, those forces must be withdrawn within 60 days (plus up to 30 days to extract them).
• Congress may also direct removal at any time by concurrent resolution under §5(c).

U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran began February 28, 2026, under what the Pentagon called Operation Epic Fury. The administration filed a 48-hour report acknowledging that date. There was no declaration of war and no Authorization for Use of Military Force aimed at Iran.

On April 7, President Trump ordered a ceasefire. On May 1 the White House told Congress that "the hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated," arguing the 60-day clock had been satisfied. Critics in both parties said a naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, forward-deployed forces, and later strikes showed the war had not ended. A brief April pause collapsed. Further U.S. strikes followed in June and July. The administration later treated later bombing as a new set of hostilities with a new clock. Massie has called that "an absurd ruse" and said the Pentagon was "pretending there have been two Iran wars separated by a brief cease-fire."

Congress voted repeatedly. Most early war-powers measures failed by slim margins. Then H. Con. Res. 86 passed both chambers in June - the first time since 1973 that both houses used §5(c) to direct removal from an unauthorized conflict. The White House said a concurrent resolution has no force of law and would not reach the president's desk. Operations continued. Hegseth has publicly described the Iran campaign as necessary, defensive of shipping and U.S. forces, and consistent with the president's commander-in-chief power.

Massie has been on this ground for more than a year. In June 2025 he and Rep. Ro Khanna introduced a bipartisan war-powers resolution to bar unauthorized hostilities in Iran. He has voted for later Iran withdrawal measures and has argued that Article I, not Article II, holds the power to start wars.

This is not the first attempt to impeach Hegseth

Massie's filing is the most procedurally serious because it is privileged and filed by a sitting Republican. It is not the first.

• In December 2025, Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) introduced two articles (H. Res. 935) focused on alleged murder in an early Caribbean boat strike - including a reported follow-up strike on survivors - and mishandling of classified information in a Signal chat about Yemen operations. The resolution went nowhere in committee.
• On April 15, 2026, Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), an Iranian American freshman, filed six articles (H. Res. 1177) with more than a dozen Democratic cosponsors: unauthorized war in Iran; violations of the law of armed conflict and targeting of civilians (including the Minab school); reckless handling of sensitive military information; obstruction of congressional oversight; abuse of power and politicization of the armed forces; and conduct bringing disrepute on the United States. Progressive groups endorsed it. It was referred to Judiciary and never received a floor vote.

Massie's eight articles overlap those earlier efforts on Iran, civilian harm, boat strikes, and Kelly, and add the Maduro raid and Yemen as standalone counts.

Impeachment of a Cabinet officer is rare. The House has used the power against a Cabinet secretary only twice in U.S. history, William Belknap in 1876 and Alejandro Mayorkas in 2024. Conviction in the Senate requires two-thirds. Even if the House adopted Massie's articles, a Republican Senate would be extremely unlikely to convict.

Just in case Japan's bond yields weren't high enough already, Bloomberg reports that Japan is considering a new mid-term defense spending target of 3.5% of GDP in line with NATO and other US allies. Such a move would send a shockwave through financial markets concerned about Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s spending plans at a time when Japan is preparing to trim tax receipts even more by cutting consumption tax to 1%.

Japanese defense officials have already signaled a willingness to sharply increase defense spending in meetings with their US counterparts, Bloomberg reported. One scenario under consideration is to match a commitment made by South Korea to increase defense spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product over 10 years, while a lower target, such as 3%, is also possible, according to one of the people.

Responding to the news, Japanese Defense Ministry Press Secretary Kimihito Aguin denied that Japan had expressed an intention to the US to sharply raise spending to 3.5% of GDP, although that is likely explained by his fear how the bond market would react if another huge spending category is suddenly revealed. 

“Japan’s defense buildup is something we undertake based on our own independent judgment, under the fundamental principle that we must defend our own country ourselves,” Aguin said at a press conference Tuesday. “It is also not a matter of starting with a predetermined spending figure. What matters is the substance of our defense capabilities.”

Well, the substance of Japan's defense capabilities is entirely dependent on how much is spent, so.... 

Like other US allies, Tokyo has been under pressure from the Trump administration to boost its defensive strength and reduce its reliance on the American military. Takaichi has already accelerated defense spending to almost 2% of gross domestic product in the financial year ended in March this year, two years ahead of schedule. 

Until 2022, Japan had an informal cap on defense spending around 1% of GDP, an indication of how quickly thinking on defense has changed in recent years. A new five-year defense spending plan is expected at the end of this year. Committing to 3.5% could unsettle market players wary of large debt issuance, even though Takaichi has pledged to follow a “responsible, proactive fiscal policy.”

While US defense officials have largely avoided public pressure on Japan to commit to a 3.5% defense spending goal, they have made clear that they expect significantly more investment. 

“We are anxiously looking for Japan to step up,” US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby said last month of Tokyo’s defense spending.

In June, Takaichi’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party noted that 3.5% had become a global standard for defense spending, but didn’t provide recommendations on how Japan could pay for such a level of outlays.

“We’ll review both spending and revenue across the board,” Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama said Tuesday. “While keeping a close eye on tax revenue, we’ll determine a level of fiscal spending — including, of course, defense spending — that is consistent with steadily bringing down the debt-to-GDP ratio.”

In meetings between defense officials from both nations, Japan has indicated it will most likely align with other US allies but it has avoided discussing details. Some Japanese officials have said they aren’t ready to make a formal pledge and would deny the existence of such a goal if it was made public, according to Bloomberg. In public, Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi has also said spending will be determined by military needs rather than monetary targets.

Behind Japan’s caution over specifying a goal is concern over the amount of funding needed to reach 3.5%. When Japan set its 2% goal in 2022 it said it would continue to measure spending in comparison to GDP that year. Koizumi said in April that defense spending and related expenditures for this fiscal year of ¥10.6 trillion ($68.8 billion) were equivalent to 1.9% of nominal GDP in 2022.

Measured against the Cabinet Office’s nominal GDP forecast for this fiscal year, spending would come to 1.5%, he said. A budget of 3.5% using that forecast would amount to ¥24 trillion, more than double the current amount.

Spending 3.5% of GDP on defense has become a global benchmark for US allies since North Atlantic Treaty Organization members pledged last June to reach that level by 2035. As a national security hawk and strong advocate of the US-Japan alliance, Takaichi has made clear she wants to further boost the military. 

“Japan needs to proactively pursue a fundamental strengthening of its defense capabilities,” she said in parliament this year.

But she also has ambitious plans for the economy. This year Takaichi announced a growth plan targeting more than ¥370 trillion in combined public and private investment by 2040, a program that may strain the nation’s finances. Ramping up defense spending at the same time may test investors’ confidence in Japan’s ability to keep a lid on its debt. After lifting its informal cap on defense spending in 2022, Japan has made significant investments in long-range strike capabilities such as land and ship-launched Tomahawk missiles. In its budget request for the fiscal year starting next April, the Defense Ministry requested a record ¥8.9 trillion for the next fiscal year, up 0.9% from the current year.

But many items in the budget request haven’t been given a projected cost, meaning the final budget is likely to be much higher. Yen weakness has also eroded Japan’s spending power for weapons from overseas.

Even if Japan commits to 3.5%, it would lag behind NATO countries. For NATO, the target is for so-called “core” defense spending, such as weapons and troop salaries. Members have also pledged an additional 1.5% of GDP for defense-related spending, such as protecting critical infrastructure.

Japan bundles core and non-core spending in its defense budget, meaning that it would be spending less on its military as a percentage of GDP than NATO countries even if it raised defense outlays to 3.5% of GDP.

Robert Ward, Japan Chair at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the groundwork had been laid among policymakers and bureaucrats in Japan for a big jump in defense spending. It’s now mostly a matter of timing of when Japan goes to 3.5%, he said.

“Whether it’s over five years or 10 years, I don’t see any alternative given how important the US alliance is,” Ward said.

Japanese defense shares IHI Corp and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd closed 1.8% and 0.9% higher in Tokyo, reversing earlier losses of more than 2%, after the report came out. The biggest impact was on Japanese government bonds extended their fall, with the benchmark 10-year yield rising to its highest level since 1996. The yen weakened as far as 155.24 to the dollar.

“There are fiscal concerns, as shown in the bond market reaction, so it’s difficult for investors to take news like this positively,” said Daisuke Aiba, an analyst at Iwai Cosmo Securities Co. “Plus, there are questions about whether Japan actually has the ability to expand its defense capabilities beyond their current limited scope.”

There was more: besides spending more, Japan is hell-bent on also collecting less (after all there are votes to be bought), and on Tuesday the Takaichi cabinet approved a plan to temporarily reduce the consumption tax on food, moving closer to delivering on a key campaign pledge ahead of February’s national election to ease the burden on households from the soaring cost of living by eliminating sales tax on food for two years.

The cabinet signed off on the annual tax reform plan, which calls for lowering the sales tax on food and beverages to 1% from 8% for two years starting in April. Under the proposal, the government won’t issue new debt to finance the roughly ¥5 trillion ($32.3 billion) measure, but... of course it will in the end. The government deferred until the end of the year a decision on how to fund the tax cut. The reason for the delay: there is no other way to fund the tax cut since no other part of the Japanese govt will agree to slashing its own expenditures. 

“Tax revenue will likely rise, and also we will review various revenue and expenditures,” Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama said Tuesday during an appearance on Fuji TV, reiterating that the government will find ways to finance the measure without relying on new debt. She added that Japan’s version of the Department of Government Efficiency will step up efforts to review and eliminate redundant subsidies and spending.

“We will make sweeping cuts to wasteful spending from now on,” Katayama said, responding to criticism that ministries identified only three programs for possible cuts in voluntary reviews aimed at finding cost savings.

Oh yes, a Japanese DOGE. That should help slow down debt issuance in the most indebted country in world history. 

Borrowing costs for the Japanese government were already elevated, with bond yields hovering near three-decade highs. The 10-year yield hit 3% earlier this month for the first time since 1996, driven by concerns over inflation and fiscal spending as well as expectations the Bank of Japan may need to raise interest rates more quickly. The yield was half that level around this time last year; it closed Tuesday at 3.04%, the highest since August 2016.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on X that Ukrainian forces struck the Syzran refinery in Russia's Samara region, about 75 miles west of Samara and 466 miles southeast of Moscow. The strike comes days after President Trump urged Ukraine to halt attacks on Russian refineries, as average US retail diesel prices jumped above $6 a gallon and alarming disruptions to global refining capacity threaten fuel supplies ahead of the Northern Hemisphere winter. 

Zelenskyy wrote on X: 

Russia continues to attack our energy sector, regular logistics, and critical infrastructure. And our responses to them for this are tangible. There are new results from the Defense Forces of Ukraine regarding the refinery in Syzran. There was also a strike in Taganrog on a drone production facility, as well as on a drone preparation and launch site in the Oryol region. Targets were hit in the Black Sea as well. I thank every one of our warriors for the effectiveness of our long-range sanctions!

The day before, the United States also announced a significant decision regarding Russia's VTB Bank – one of Russia's systemic banks, which is heavily involved in schemes supporting Russia's war and, in particular, its relations with the Iranian regime. All such schemes that work against peace truly need to be dismantled. I thank our partners for this useful step!

There is no alternative to ending this war. And all forms of pressure on Russia must create the right diplomatic conditions. Glory to Ukraine!

Russia continues to attack our energy sector, regular logistics, and critical infrastructure. And our responses to them for this are tangible. There are new results from the Defense Forces of Ukraine regarding the refinery in Syzran. There was also a strike in Taganrog on a drone… pic.twitter.com/Lu47QcmvuD

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / ????????? ?????????? (@ZelenskyyUa) September 15, 2026

President Trump on Sunday urged Ukraine to stop attacking Russian refineries, as record US diesel prices above $6 a gallon intensify political concerns over fuel costs and affordability ahead of November's midterm elections.

Trump blamed the strikes for shortages he said were "hurting the world." Ukraine's drone strike campaign against Russian refineries has curtailed refining and, alongside Moscow's export restrictions, sharply reduced overseas diesel supplies, tightening availability of the industrial fuel essential to freight, agriculture and industry. 

Compounding the supply pressure, Saudi Arabia shut its East-West pipeline following a drone attack that Saudi and Iraqi authorities said originated in Iraq. The pipeline provides Saudis with a critical route to Red Sea export facilities, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Houthi advances around the Bab al-Mandeb Strait are threatening another major maritime chokepoint, adding to disruptions on both sides of the Arabian Peninsula.