Shadow Diplomacy and Sanctions Sabotage: The Constitutional Crisis Brewing in Ukraine

THE THREE MONKEYS OF THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT?

In May and June 2025, a bipartisan delegation including Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Kyiv, Ukraine, where they publicly advocated for escalating sanctions against Russia, China, and India. Their visit and messaging directly contradict President Trump's ongoing diplomatic approach, which emphasizes restraint, strategic de-escalation, and renewed peace negotiations. This white paper explores the constitutional and national security implications of such rogue diplomacy, warns of the precedent it sets, and offers recommendations to restore executive primacy in foreign affairs.

I. Background and Context

The United States Constitution places the authority over foreign policy firmly within the Executive Branch. Article II, Section 2 vests the President with the power to conduct diplomacy, command the armed forces, and negotiate treaties. While Congress holds sanctioning power and oversight responsibilities, no individual member or coalition has the authority to represent U.S. foreign policy abroad without Executive coordination.

“A lot of countries still buy Russian oil and gas but less. Some European countries still have relationships with Russia, but they’ve been very helpful to Ukraine. So I want to carve them out,” Graham told reporters Wednesday.

“I tell China, if you don’t want to have a 500 percent tariff, help Ukraine.” Lyndsey Graham

In May 2025, Senator Graham led a delegation to Ukraine alongside Senator Blumenthal and Mike Pompeo. During the visit:

• The group praised Ukraine's drone strikes on Russian airfields.

• They announced a bipartisan push for a "Sanctioning Russia Act" targeting any country trading with Russia.

• Graham and Pompeo gave statements suggesting bipartisan U.S. commitment to military and economic escalation.

  
  

These actions were taken without President Trump’s authorization and occurred while his administration was pursuing diplomatic de-escalation and ceasefire negotiations through backchannels.

“There’s some of our allies who’ve really helped Ukraine but would be affected by the bill, they’ve earned their way to get a carveout. Those who have helped Ukraine, meaningfully, will get a carveout. In other words you’ll incentivize people to help Ukraine.” Lyndsey Graham

II. Legal and Constitutional Implications

A. Violation of the Logan Act The Logan Act (18 U.S. Code §953) prohibits unauthorized U.S. citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in disputes with the United States. Although historically underutilized, its provisions clearly apply to individuals who present themselves as unofficial diplomats.

B. Breach of Executive Authority The President is the sole constitutional voice in foreign policy. By presenting a bipartisan front, Graham and his allies risk establishing a de facto alternate foreign policy, inviting confusion and undermining national credibility.

C. Use of Economic Warfare Without Mandate The sanctions promoted by the delegation amount to acts of economic war. By targeting major global players without executive endorsement, they risk retaliation, global economic instability, and geopolitical blowback.

III. Strategic and Diplomatic Risks

1. Mixed Signals to Allies and Adversaries Ukraine, China, and Russia are now confronted with conflicting messages from the U.S. government. This weakens trust in American diplomacy and reduces the likelihood of successful negotiations.

2. Encouragement of Escalation Statements applauding Ukrainian drone strikes encourage further kinetic actions, possibly provoking broader regional war.

3. Undermining Peace Initiatives The President’s attempts to negotiate a settlement are rendered less credible if foreign governments believe Congress or former officials hold veto power over U.S. commitments.

IV. Historical Precedent

This is not the first attempt by factions within the U.S. government to independently conduct foreign affairs:

• In 1968, the Nixon campaign was accused of sabotaging Vietnam peace talks.

• In 2015, 47 Senators sent an open letter to Iran undermining Obama’s nuclear deal.

• More recently, John Kerry engaged in backchannel talks with Iran during the Trump administration.

• 
  

Each instance triggered significant concern but failed to provoke systemic reform. The Ukraine episode may be the most dangerous yet, given the presence of active warfare and nuclear-armed adversaries.

V. Recommendations

1. Public Clarification of U.S. Policy The President must issue an unambiguous statement asserting that Graham, Blumenthal, and Pompeo do not speak for the administration and that unauthorized sanctions advocacy is not U.S. policy.

2. Legal Review and Accountability The Department of Justice should review whether the Logan Act or FARA statutes have been violated, particularly if communications with Ukraine involved the exchange of promises or intelligence.

3. Congressional Ethics Investigation Congress should examine whether members of the Senate violated ethical guidelines or committee authorities by independently proposing foreign policy actions.

4. Codification of Diplomatic Restraints Legislation or executive orders should be drafted to prevent lawmakers or former officials from engaging in unsanctioned foreign policy trips without explicit coordination from the White House.

5. Media Counter-Narrative and Strategic Messaging The administration should launch a coordinated media effort to clarify U.S. intentions, highlight rogue elements within Congress, and reassure both adversaries and allies that only the Executive speaks for the United States.

VI. Conclusion

The U.S. cannot afford two foreign policies. Rogue diplomacy risks war, confusion, and national embarrassment. It is time to draw a clear constitutional line: no Senator, no matter how senior or bipartisan their company, has the right to supersede the authority of the President in matters of war and diplomacy.

What could be effecting Senator Graham and Blumenthal (and others) so much? I believe you will see that when Trump cut the deal with Ukraine regarding the mineral extraction, it left the original Biden era slush bank of Ukraine high and dry and the swamp can't have that.

see the older article here: https://www.southfloridaconservative.com/post/blackrock-jpmorgan-and-ukraine-form-corporate-country

versus the Trump bank: https://www.southfloridaconservative.com/post/exploring-the-impact-of-trump-and-biden-s-investment-banks-on-ukraine-s-economy