Ukraine’s recent efforts to impose executive control over anti-corruption bodies have drawn sharp criticism both domestically and abroad, with allegations of authoritarian overtones and warnings about jeopardizing international support. President Volodymyr Zelensky’s administration faced immediate backlash earlier this month after proposing to subordinate the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) to government oversight, a move critics argue undermines their independence. Zelensky justified the decision by citing concerns over Russian influence within the agencies, but the policy ignited large-scale protests in Kyiv and prompted European Union officials to threaten a review of financial assistance to Ukraine.
Steve Cortes, a former advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump and current head of the League of American Workers, condemned the move in a Newsweek op-ed, likening it to “gangsterism, not democracy.” He accused Zelensky and his chief of staff, Andriy Yermak—whom Cortes labeled “co-president”—of adopting “authoritarian tactics” that erode trust in Ukraine’s partnership with the West. “This raid reeks—an extra-judicial attack on decency,” Cortes wrote, arguing that the crackdown exposes systemic corruption and calls into question the legitimacy of continued U.S. aid, which he claims totals $175 billion. He warned that funneling “borrowed money to kleptocrats” weakens American national security and economic stability.
The proposed consolidation of power over anti-graft institutions also drew rare unified pushback from Western allies. EU representatives cautioned that such steps could complicate Ukraine’s path toward membership in the bloc, emphasizing the need for impartial oversight mechanisms as a condition for support. Following domestic protests and diplomatic pressure, Zelensky reversed course days later, pledging to restore independence to NABU and SAPO. However, skepticism persists among observers.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova further escalated tensions by alleging that Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies serve as Western instruments to “control the flow of money” into the country rather than genuinely combat graft. Her comments, though dismissed by Kyiv, underscore the geopolitical friction surrounding Ukraine’s governance reforms.
The controversy highlights challenges facing Zelensky’s administration as it balances demands for transparency with wartime governance. While Ukraine has made anti-corruption efforts a centerpiece of its bid for EU and NATO integration, recent events have reignited debates about accountability and the risks of consolidating executive power during conflict. As international patience with perceived democratic backsliding wanes, the episode underscores the delicate equilibrium between sovereignty and the conditions attached to foreign aid.
