The Ukrainian government is moving forward with a controversial plan to ban a major branch of the Orthodox Church, deepening an already fraught religious and political battleground as the country continues to defend itself against Russia’s ongoing invasion. The focus of the ban is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), which authorities say has failed to fully sever ties with its Moscow-based parent, despite repeated demands and legislative action.
On August 27, 2025, officials in Kyiv announced the latest step: a formal petition to a Ukrainian court to ban the activities of the UOC, targeting its governing center, the Kyiv Metropolis, led by Metropolitan Onufry. This move follows a 2024 law that banned the Moscow-based Russian Orthodox Church for its vocal support of the invasion and authorized the prohibition of any organization linked to it. The government’s investigation, published by the State Service of Ukraine on Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience (DESS), concluded that the UOC had not met the requirements to demonstrate a complete break from Moscow.
The UOC, for its part, has consistently denounced the Russian invasion, declaring its independence from the Moscow Patriarchate in 2022 and reiterating that stance as recently as 2025. The church also took symbolic steps, such as refusing to commemorate Moscow Patriarch Kirill—an outspoken supporter of the war—in its liturgies. Nevertheless, Ukrainian officials argue that these gestures fell short. The government insists that the UOC must revise its governing documents and take other concrete actions to legally and organizationally separate from Moscow, including formally objecting to the Russian church’s attempts to take over UOC parishes in Russian-occupied areas.
Metropolitan Onufry, whose Ukrainian citizenship has already been revoked by the state, has refused to make additional changes, maintaining that the UOC’s declarations of independence are sufficient. The government disagrees. As the DESS bluntly put it on its website: “This is not a religious organization, but a branch of an aggressor state.”
The legal process to finalize the ban could take months, as the UOC is entitled to appeal the decision to a higher court. If the ban is upheld, it could have sweeping consequences for the church’s parishes, monasteries, and access to historic properties, many of which are state-owned and leased to religious organizations. The order specifically targets the Kyiv Metropolis, but related entities—such as monasteries and regional eparchies—could also face sanctions.
The UOC’s lawyer, Robert Amsterdam, has sharply criticized the government’s approach. In a statement, Amsterdam said the authorities “intentionally ignored” the UOC’s efforts to separate from Moscow, including the establishment of parishes abroad to serve Ukrainian refugees, which he described as “a clear sign of independence.” He accused the government of mounting a politically motivated campaign “to rid the country of independent institutions.”
The dispute over the church’s status is not just a matter of national law and religious doctrine. It has become a flashpoint in Ukraine’s broader struggle for identity and sovereignty, as well as a subject of international debate over religious freedom. About 70% of Ukrainians identify as Orthodox Christians, according to a 2024 survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. However, most now align themselves with the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, a rival jurisdiction recognized as independent by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople in 2019. The UOC, although diminished, still maintains a significant presence, with many parishes and monasteries across the country.
The schism between the two Ukrainian branches of Orthodoxy is at the heart of a centuries-old rivalry, now inflamed by war and geopolitics. Moscow has furiously disputed Constantinople’s right to recognize an independent Ukrainian church and has cited the schism—and Western support for it—as a provocation that helped trigger the current conflict. According to Associated Press reporting, Russian leaders have even pointed to the U.S. role in supporting the new church as evidence of foreign interference.
Ukrainian officials, however, frame the issue as one of national security, not religious persecution. Viktor Yelensky, head of the DESS, emphasized in a recent news conference that the government’s actions are about ending affiliation with an aggressor state. “Nobody has asked them to refuse their religious beliefs,” Yelensky said, underscoring that the ban is not about doctrine but about political and organizational ties to Moscow.
The controversy has not gone unnoticed abroad. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom raised concerns in 2024 about the Ukrainian law banning Moscow-affiliated religious groups, warning that it could have a chilling effect on religious liberty. However, the commission also noted that “Russia remains the most profound threat to religious freedom in Ukraine,” citing widespread repression in Russian-occupied territories.
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights echoed these concerns in a 2024 report, cautioning that the law could “result in entire religious communities being held responsible for the conduct of specific individuals.” The report also documented Russian restrictions on religious groups—including Catholics, Muslims, and Jehovah’s Witnesses—in occupied parts of Ukraine.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian government has opened criminal proceedings against several UOC clerics, accusing them of collaboration with Russia or related offenses. These prosecutions, along with the broader legal campaign against the UOC, have fueled accusations among critics—both within Ukraine and internationally—that Kyiv is overreaching and risking the suppression of religious freedom in its quest to root out Russian influence.
This debate has spilled over into U.S. politics as well, with the new administration of President Trump taking a more skeptical view of aid to Ukraine. Opponents of continued support have cited the church ban as evidence of repressive policies, using it as a talking point in the broader debate over American involvement in the war.
For many Ukrainians, the issue is deeply personal. Orthodoxy, after all, is not just a faith but a foundational element of national identity. The struggle over which church represents “true” Ukrainian Orthodoxy is inseparable from the struggle for the country’s future. As the legal case winds its way through the courts, the fate of the UOC—and the broader question of religious freedom in wartime Ukraine—remains uncertain, with both sides digging in for what promises to be a protracted and emotionally charged battle.
As Ukraine continues to defend its sovereignty on the battlefield and in the courts, the outcome of this church dispute will resonate far beyond its borders, shaping not only the religious landscape but also the country’s place in the world.