It would seem that Congress, who with a nearly unanimous vote passed these Russian Sanctions has a responsibility to exercise their power to address the issue.
Since McConnel and Ryan are Russian tools Chuck Schumer abd Nancy Pelosi should be pursuing this.
Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution states Presidential responsibilities
Clause 5: Caring for the faithful execution of the law
"The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."[25] This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the President to enforce the laws of the United States and is called the Take Care Clause,[26] also known as the Faithful Execution Clause[27] or Faithfully Executed Clause.[28] This clause is meant to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the President [26] even if he disagrees with the purpose of that law.[29] Addressing the North Carolina ratifying convention, William Maclaine declared that the Faithful Execution Clause was "one of the [Constitution's] best provisions."[27] If the President "takes care to see the laws faithfully executed, it will be more than is done in any government on the continent; for I will venture to say that our government, and those of the other states, are, with respect to the execution of the laws, in many respects mere ciphers."[27] President George Washington interpreted this clause as imposing on him a unique duty to ensure the execution of federal law. Discussing a tax rebellion, Washington observed, "it is my duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to [that duty.]"[27]
According to former United States Assistant Attorney General Walter E. Dellinger III, the Supreme Court and the Attorneys General have long interpreted the Take Care Clause to mean that the President has no inherent constitutional authority to suspend the enforcement of the laws, particularly of statutes.[30] The Take Care Clause demands that the President obey the law, the Supreme Court said in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, and repudiates any notion that he may dispense with the law's execution.[31] In Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court explained how the President executes the law: "The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2."[32]
The President may not prevent a member of the executive branch from performing a ministerial duty lawfully imposed upon him by Congress. (See Marbury v. Madison (1803); and Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes (1838)). Nor may the President take an action not authorized either by the Constitution or by a lawful statute. (See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)). Finally, the President may not refuse to enforce a constitutional law, or "cancel" certain appropriations, for that would amount to an extra-constitutional veto or suspension power.[27]
= new reply since forum marked as read
