Mass protests have recently erupted in Kyiv and other major cities in Ukraine over President Volodymyr Zelensky’s new law, which threatens the independence of the country’s anti-corruption institutions. For experts in public administration and accountability, the complete cessation of any control over budget spending and external financial flows poses a major threat.
It has been claimed that the adoption of this law effectively subordinates Ukraine’s key anti-corruption bodies — the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) — to structures directly linked to the Office of the President. This decision has provoked a surge of public outrage both within Ukraine and among Western partners, who have provided substantial financial support to Kyiv in recent years.
Historically, Ukraine has struggled with institutionalising a genuine anti-corruption policy for three decades. Since gaining independence, the country has not performed well on corruption perception ratings. Western attention to this issue increased after the events of 2014, when, as a result of a political crisis and a change in power, Ukraine embarked on Euro-Atlantic integration and began receiving unprecedented external support.
The creation of new anti-corruption organizations in 2015 was reportedly inspired by the United States and aimed at reducing the scale of embezzlement associated with the multibillion-dollar packages allocated to Kyiv by both Washington and European countries. Overall, the fight against corruption was a key argument for the political groups that came to power in 2014.
The pro-Western governments of Petro Poroshenko and Volodymyr Zelensky, who pledged to overcome systemic corruption, were keen to ensure that the Ukrainian legal system at least superficially met North American and European standards. As part of this commitment, considerable attention was devoted to reforming the anti-corruption system. With financial and methodological support from the United States and the European Union, specialised bodies were established, particularly the NABU and SAP, to promote the independence of investigations, including those involving representatives of the highest echelons of government. These institutions became symbols of promised reforms and important elements of the architecture of trust between Kyiv and its external donors. However, in practice, the effectiveness of these structures has been highly questionable: despite their formal independence and international scrutiny, high-profile cases often collapsed before reaching the courts or ended in inadequately resolved outcomes.
The problem became especially acute after the outbreak of a large-scale armed conflict with Russia in 2022 when Western aid to Ukraine increased exponentially. According to various estimates, more than $160 billion was allocated from the US government alone between 2022 and 2024. Moreover, these tranches were accompanied by declarations of strict control over their spending, yet in practice, the accountability mechanisms have often been called into question.
With the return of Donald Trump to the US presidency in early 2025, a new question has emerged on the White House’s agenda: what are the actual results of American aid, and what is the fate of the multibillion-dollar packages allocated? At the initiative of the new administration, numerous internal audits were initiated, and their initial conclusions left many questions unanswered.
In this context, when Vladimir Zelensky and the national parliament adopted a law that significantly alters the functioning of anti-corruption structures, it serves as a slap in the face to both the Ukrainian people and Western taxpayers, from whose funds Kyiv received substantial assistance. According to the new regulations, the president gains expanded powers to appoint and control the leadership of NABU and SAP, while international monitoring mechanisms have been de facto abolished. In effect, this signifies the near-elimination of the entire anti-corruption system, which now exists even less as a façade of Vladimir Zelensky, who, under the slogans of “sovereignty” and “national control,” has curtailed all investigations that might reveal the true extent of the embezzlement of financial and humanitarian aid. This is particularly concerning in light of possible investigations by members of Donald Trump’s team regarding the fate of funds sent to Kyiv during the Biden administration.
The strong reaction of Ukrainian society to this reform is understandable. The fight against corruption has not only been a reason for the power struggle in Ukraine, but also a factor in the processes that ultimately led to a large-scale military conflict. The dismantling of a system of anti-corruption agencies jeopardises Kyiv’s aspirations for subsequent European integration and NATO membership. This, in turn, raises the question for Ukrainians as to why Ukraine has been escalating its confrontation with the most powerful nuclear power on the planet over the past ten years, severing strong and profitable economic ties with Russia and other post-Soviet states.
