KYIV, Ukraine — July 2025

Ukraine is witnessing its largest wave of public unrest since the beginning of the full-scale war with Russia, as President Volodymyr Zelensky signs a controversial law tightening executive control over the country’s top anti-corruption agencies. The move has sparked widespread protests across Ukrainian cities, ignited fierce criticism from civil society, and raised international concerns about the country’s democratic trajectory.

A Law That Changes Everything

The legislation in question grants the Prosecutor General, a presidential appointee, sweeping powers over two cornerstone institutions in Ukraine’s anti-corruption architecture: the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Under the new law, the Prosecutor General can issue binding orders, reassign or shut down investigations, and exert substantial influence over cases that were previously handled independently.

For many Ukrainians, this is not just a bureaucratic reshuffle—it’s a direct threat to the reforms that emerged from the 2014 Revolution of Dignity and years of pressure from civil society and Western allies.

Mass Protests Across the Country

In response, tens of thousands of people took to the streets in cities including Kyiv, Lviv, Dnipro, and Odesa. Protesters held signs reading “Veto the Law,” “No Corruption in Government,” and “We Chose Europe, Not Autocracy.” Many chanted slogans from the 2014 Euromaidan uprising, drawing parallels between that pivotal moment and what they see as a current backslide into centralized power.

Veterans of the ongoing war with Russia also joined the protests. Some carried photos of fallen comrades, stating, “My brother didn’t die for this kind of future.” These demonstrations mark the first large-scale civilian protests during wartime—a clear sign of deep domestic unease.

Zelensky’s Justification and Public Skepticism

President Zelensky defended the law by citing national security concerns, claiming the anti-corruption bodies had been compromised by Russian infiltration and bureaucratic gridlock. He argued that streamlining oversight under the Prosecutor General would improve coordination and accountability in high-profile investigations.

Despite these reassurances, critics say the timing and scope of the law reflect a broader trend of executive overreach. Civil society leaders argue that the law undermines the independence of agencies that were once praised internationally for their role in cleaning up corruption—a major issue that has long plagued Ukraine’s governance.

International Response

The law has drawn swift condemnation from international partners. European Union officials have warned that Ukraine risks stalling its EU accession process by weakening the rule of law. Western donors and advisors are also alarmed, as many anti-corruption reforms were conditions for financial aid, military support, and trade benefits.

Observers note that Ukraine, already under the stress of an ongoing war, cannot afford to lose the trust of its allies—or its citizens.

What’s at Stake?

For Ukraine, the implications of this law go far beyond legal jurisdiction. It touches the core of the nation’s identity: a country striving to join the European Union, rebuild from invasion, and leave behind its Soviet-era legacy of corruption and authoritarianism.

Protesters, lawmakers, and watchdogs are now calling on President Zelensky to reconsider the law, and some have vowed to challenge it in court. Others are demanding new reforms to restore institutional independence and rebuild public trust.

Conclusion

As Ukraine continues its fight on the battlefield, a new front has opened at home—one centered on democracy, accountability, and the soul of the nation. Whether the government can balance wartime leadership with respect for democratic principles will shape not only Ukraine’s recovery, but also its future as part of the European family.