Table of Contents
Updated October 17, 2026, to reflect the President’s executive order of October 16, 2026.
It happens more often than you would think. A delisting petition went in more than a year ago. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sent two questionnaires, both were answered, and then nothing. On September 18, 2026, the President signed the Graham Act, and suddenly it was unclear under what rules the petition would be decided and whether it would be decided at all.
A month later, on October 16, the President himself waived nearly every measure in the Act, including the provision that created that uncertainty. The removal procedure formally survived throughout. Our reading now is that, for persons designated under Executive Order (EO) 14024, it works again the way it did before the Act. But this is a window, not a new rule. It can be closed with a single decision, and delisting after the Graham Act depends largely on whether you use it in time.
We covered the statute itself, its mandatory sanctions and its tariffs, in a separate article. This piece is only about persons already on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) with a [RUSSIA-EO14024] tag.
Below we go through what the order changed, what happens to pending petitions, how long the window is likely to stay open, and how to build the file.
What the Graham Act Locked In and What the Order Suspended
Section 102(d) is titled “Maintenance of Certain Sanctions.” It requires that sanctions under every executive order issued to address the national emergency concerning harmful foreign activities of the Russian government stay in effect as they stood the day before enactment. It then adds that this applies to all persons sanctioned under those orders.
That emergency was declared in EO 14024 on April 15, 2021. The President continued it on March 24, 2026, and that is the date the Graham Act refers to. The provision covers EO 14024 itself and the orders issued under the same emergency: EO 14066, 14068, 14071 and 14114. In practice, this reaches a large share of the sanctions imposed on Russian individuals and companies over the past five years, including the 2022 wave of SDN designations.
Until October 16, the key question was whether OFAC could still remove individuals and companies from the SDN List through the ordinary administrative process, given that the statute locked in sanctions on every person already designated. The statute did not say. The October 16 order took that question off the table, at least for now. Section 4(b) of the order waived Section 102(d) and, in the same breath, confirmed that the executive order sanctions themselves, including those on every designated person, remain in effect.
Put simply, the sanctions stayed, but the statutory bar on lifting them the old way no longer applies. The Act itself has not been repealed. Most of it, Section 102(d) included, runs until September 18, 2031, and the waived provision can come back into force. Delisting after the Graham Act once again rests on the ordinary procedure, with a time limit attached.
The Delisting Routes the Statute Provides
The Graham Act provides two mechanisms for lifting sanctions:
-Section 115
The President may waive any measure under the Act by certifying to Congress in writing that the waiver is in the U.S. national interest and submitting a report explaining why. There is no mechanism for a disapproval resolution. This is exactly the tool the President used on October 16, and not for a single person but for almost the entire Act at once.
-Section 117
Termination requires a presidential certification, a 30-day review period, and gives Congress the right to pass a joint resolution of disapproval. For a Russian person, there is one condition: by then, Russia must have signed a peace agreement accepted by a free and independent Ukrainian government and ended hostilities. The order waived this section too.
While the waiver lasts, the peace-agreement condition does not apply to an individual Russian petitioner, and there is no need for a separate Section 115 filing with the President: that decision has already been made for everyone. Both mechanisms are still worth keeping in mind in case the waiver is revoked.
A similar rule already exists in the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) of 2017. Section 222 of CAATSA codified a number of Ukraine-related and cyber executive orders and, at the same time, provided a special procedure for terminating sanctions on individual persons, Russians included (22 U.S.C. § 9522(b)). The October 16 order does not touch CAATSA. It is a separate statute, and the Graham Act waiver does not reach it.
Pending Petitions Under Section 501.807
Petitions for removal from the SDN List are filed under section 501.807 of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations (31 C.F.R. § 501.807). The Graham Act never repealed that procedure. The question was a different one: whether OFAC could grant a petition at all once Section 102(d) had locked in the sanctions on every designated person.
Before the order, there were two ways to read Section 102(d). On the narrow reading, it preserved the sanctions program but left room for individual reconsideration of a designation for those who were listed before the Graham Act. On the broad reading, it also froze the designations already made, which substantially restricted ordinary delisting for the persons concerned. While the waiver lasts, in our view, that debate loses its practical weight: a waived provision does not stop OFAC from deciding petitions, as was the case before September 18.
What should you do with a pending petition? There is no reason to withdraw it. If anything, the opposite. Answer OFAC’s requests fully and on time. Documents showing that the basis for designation never existed or has since fallen away matter most: for example, the ownership stake was sold, or the position was given up. Ceasing the relevant activity does not, on its own, guarantee removal.
Timing looks different too. Before the order, OFAC could explain a pause by waiting for clarity on the new statute, and a court would have been unlikely to call that delay unreasonable. That explanation is now much weaker, and the usual ways to speed up an OFAC delisting decision carry weight again.
Why Your SDN Tag Now Matters
The legal basis for a designation used to look like a technical detail of the entry. After the October 16 order, it determines whether the window is open for you at all.
-[RUSSIA-EO14024]
This tag points to sanctions under EO 14024. While the waiver lasts, Section 102(d) does not apply to them, and a petition is decided through the ordinary process.
-Ukraine-related tags under EO 13660, 13661, 13662 and 13685, and cyber-related bases under EO 13694 and 13757
These orders were codified by Section 222 of CAATSA, and the October 16 order does not reach them. Subsection (b) allows a special termination procedure if its conditions are met, including that the person has stopped the relevant activity or taken significant, verifiable steps to do so, and has given reliable assurances about future conduct. That procedure is not the same as OFAC simply deciding to delist.
-More than one tag
Each legal basis has to be analyzed separately. Lifting one of them does not necessarily take the person off the SDN List if other independent bases remain.
Here is how it looks. Right now, a person with only the [RUSSIA-EO14024] tag has an easier route off the list than someone designated under the 2014 Ukraine-related orders. Before choosing a strategy, review everything in the SDN record: program tags, legal bases, and the history of changes.
How Long the Delisting Window Will Stay Open
The waiver has no end date. It stays in effect until the President or the Secretary of State decides otherwise, and Congress has no part in that decision. It can be revoked at any time, for example, if peace talks between Russia and Ukraine stall.
The outer limit, though, is already visible. The next presidential election is in November 2028. If the Democratic candidate wins, we expect the waiver to be revoked right after the inauguration on January 20, 2029, and Section 102(d) would apply again. It would be unwise to count on the window staying open any longer than that.
More than two years remain in the current President’s term. That is more than enough time for you to build the file, submit the petition, go through several rounds of OFAC questions, and get a decision. But only if the work starts now, not six months before the election. Delisting after the Graham Act has become a project with a clear deadline.
If you want to use this window, contact us. We start by reviewing your SDN entry and the bases for your designation.
Building the File for Both Scenarios
Preparing for only one scenario is risky. Delisting after the Graham Act calls for a file that works now, while the waiver lasts, and after it is revoked.
For a § 501.807 petition, the order requires nothing new. You still need the documents for an OFAC delisting petition that were prepared before: proof that the basis for designation has fallen away or was mistaken, share sale and exit documents, resignation orders, corporate registry extracts, bank confirmations.
The fallback scenario matters if the waiver is revoked before your petition is decided. Section 102(d) would then be back in play, and the route for an individual could run through a presidential decision under Section 115. That works on a different logic. The President is not deciding whether you did anything wrong. He is deciding whether relief serves U.S. interests. So it pays to gather, in advance, material that can be presented as a benefit to the United States, or at least as the absence of harm:
- assets, a business, or a transaction in which U.S. companies or the U.S. government have an interest
- a break with the Russian state and its entities, shown through records rather than statements
- a willingness to accept transparency: independent directors, audits, regular reporting
- status on allied lists, since an EU or UK designation counts against relief and a removal there is worth showing
The case of En+ Group, UC Rusal and JSC EuroSibEnergo shows how this works in practice. OFAC designated the companies on April 6, 2018, because Oleg Deripaska owned and controlled them. They came off the list on January 27, 2019, after Deripaska cut his stake and gave up control, the boards became independent, and the Senate fell short of the 60 votes needed to take up a disapproval resolution (57 to 42). Deripaska himself stayed on the list. The lesson for today’s clients: removal under congressional oversight is possible, but it takes months and requires changes in structure, not just good arguments.
There is also the risk of new sanctions. The mandatory 180-day review under Section 102(a) is waived, but OFAC can still designate persons under EO 14024 at its own discretion. That is why the file has to address not only the original designation but also whether there are current grounds for sanctions.
What OFAC Is Likely to Do Next
OFAC is unlikely to issue specific guidance on Section 102(d) now that the provision is waived. The real signal will be the first removals of persons with the [RUSSIA-EO14024] tag after October 16. If such decisions appear in the coming months, OFAC reads the order the way we do.
If OFAC instead denies a petition citing Section 102(d), or lets it sit without explanation, its position could be challenged in federal court, provided the procedural grounds are there. Since the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, courts decide what a statute means for themselves rather than deferring to OFAC’s reading.
For a Russian person, delisting after the Graham Act is once again mainly an administrative matter, but only for a time. The October 16 order opened a window that, in our assessment, will stay open no longer than the current presidential term and may close sooner. Keep a pending petition alive, and file a new one now rather than later. Those who start early come out ahead.
