In a striking display of civic engagement, Ukrainians took to the streets in July 2025, staging some of the largest protests the country has seen in years. Their target? A controversial law that threatened the independence of Ukraine’s key anti-corruption agencies—the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). The backlash was so intense that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose wartime leadership had previously commanded near-universal support, was forced into a rapid about-face. Yet the episode has left a lasting mark on Ukrainian politics and public trust, with reverberations felt from Kyiv to Western capitals.
According to reporting by Ukrainska Pravda and the Associated Press, the root of the controversy was draft law No. 12414. This bill, which sped through parliament with little debate, would have placed NABU and SAPO under the control of the Prosecutor General—effectively curbing their independence. Several members of parliament (MPs), particularly from the ruling Servant of the People party, voted enthusiastically for the measure, reportedly to their own applause and “without hiding their inappropriate satisfaction.”
But even as the ink dried on the bill, cracks began to show. Sources within law enforcement told Ukrainska Pravda that at least six MPs from the ruling party could face charges of illicit enrichment and false asset declarations. These cases, it turns out, had been prepared even before the vote. The same MPs who had championed the bill were now seeking “vague guarantees” from authorities that NABU and SAPO would not investigate them once the agencies’ independence was inevitably restored.
Senior representatives of Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions were quick to distance themselves from any suggestion of political targeting. “We have always operated based on principles, and we continue to do so. That’s our guarantee of integrity. But if the political leadership doesn’t want to fight corruption, it becomes significantly harder to meet public expectations,” one source told Ukrainska Pravda. They emphasized that NABU and SAPO are “not the Security Service of Ukraine or the State Bureau of Investigation” and do not engage in “political persecution.”
For President Zelenskyy, the episode proved to be a rare but significant political miscalculation. As AP reports, the law was initially justified by Zelenskyy as a necessary measure to root out Russian influence within the anti-corruption bodies. However, no evidence was provided to support this claim, and the bill was pushed through so quickly that some lawmakers admitted they barely had time to read it. “I voted not because I agreed with the law, but because it was the president's decision,” said lawmaker Oleksandr Merezhko, a member of Zelenskyy’s party. “I had no time to read it, but I understood what was at risk, and I voted like other people because we trusted the president. It was his decision, and we are team players.”
The Ukrainian public, however, was not so forgiving. Having tolerated the suspension of civil liberties and martial law since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, many saw the move as a step too far. The protests that erupted in Kyiv and other cities were not just about one law, but about a deep-seated demand for transparency and accountability—even during wartime. “It’s not one law that brought people to the streets, but a series of events and mostly an accumulation of feelings and wanting to show the government there are certain red lines,” said Tetiana Shevchuk, a board member of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, as quoted by AP.
Public trust in Zelenskyy, once sky-high, took a noticeable hit. A Gallup poll released in July 2025 found that about two-thirds of Ukrainians approved of his job performance, down from 84% in 2022. Another poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology showed a similar drop, especially after the controversial law was signed. While Ukrainians remain united behind Zelenskyy’s war efforts, the episode has “damaged” the previous level of trust that he would “carry out everything correctly, without outside interests,” Shevchuk observed. “Zelenskyy will need to work hard to get it back.”
The controversy also shone a spotlight on Zelenskyy’s inner circle, several members of which have faced corruption allegations in recent months. Former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov, a close ally of the president, was named a suspect in a high-profile land-grab case and later implicated in a broader corruption scheme led by a Kyiv property developer. Meanwhile, businessman Tymur Mindich, a longtime friend of Zelenskyy’s, was reportedly on the verge of being formally accused by NABU and SAPO in connection with drone production contracts.
As public anger mounted, lawmakers who had previously rubber-stamped presidential initiatives began to reconsider their approach. “Now members of parliament will be more careful,” Merezhko told AP. “If before we had a presumption of trust with respect to the president or cabinet of the bills, we now have a presumption of mistrust. If similar bills are introduced, members of parliament will remember what happened. They don’t want to be framed or blamed for what happened.”
Zelenskyy himself acknowledged the shortcomings in how the law was handled. “Probably there should have been a dialogue. Communication is always necessary,” he told reporters on July 24. In a bid to calm the public and reassure international partners, parliament swiftly passed new legislation restoring the independence of NABU and SAPO. “People asked for changes. We responded,” Zelenskyy said.
The episode did not go unnoticed in Western capitals. Ukraine’s European allies, who have consistently emphasized the importance of anti-corruption reforms in the country’s bid to join the European Union, expressed concern over the initial law and relief at its reversal. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, in a July 24 call with Zelenskyy, underscored the “importance of the role of independent anti-corruption institutions at the heart of Ukraine’s democracy,” according to a readout from his office. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul was similarly candid, writing on X that the Ukrainian parliament’s reversal “was a positive and necessary step toward regaining lost trust.”
Meanwhile, the United States, typically vocal on issues of governance in Ukraine, was notably silent on the matter, with President Donald Trump offering no public comment on the controversy.
For many Ukrainians, the events of July 2025 served as a stark reminder of the power of collective action and the enduring demand for honest governance. “The protests were a reminder to the president from the people basically saying, ‘We see everything, remember everything. And we don’t want the president to use his power to protect corruption,’” Shevchuk told AP.
As Ukraine continues to fight for its survival and its future, the episode has redrawn the boundaries of trust between the public, parliament, and the presidency. The message from the streets is clear: even in wartime, there are some lines that cannot be crossed.
