International
Zelensky faces nationwide protests after dissolving independent corruption watchdogs
Quick Hit:
President Zelensky is facing the largest protests since the war began after dismantling Ukraine’s top anti-corruption bodies. A new law puts previously independent agencies under presidential control, sparking backlash from liberal Ukrainians and Western allies. Demonstrators accuse Zelensky of consolidating power and betraying democratic reforms.
Key Details:
- Zelensky signed legislation placing independent anti-corruption units NABU and SAPO under control of the prosecutor general, who is appointed by the president.
- Security forces raided over 70 locations tied to anti-corruption groups, arresting senior officials including a top NABU detective.
- Hundreds protested in major Ukrainian cities; European leaders warned the move could jeopardize Western support and funding.
I gathered all heads of Ukraine’s law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies, along with the Prosecutor General. It was a much-needed meeting — a frank and constructive conversation that truly helps. We all share a common enemy: the Russian occupiers. And defending the… pic.twitter.com/GNIA585mGR
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) July 23, 2025
Diving Deeper:
Zelensky’s decision to effectively neuter Ukraine’s flagship anti-corruption institutions has drawn fierce backlash from within his own country and from Western governments. What began as allegations of Russian infiltration into the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) has quickly escalated into a full-blown political crisis. On Monday, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) conducted sweeping raids, arresting key figures such as Ruslan Magamedrasulov, one of NABU’s top detectives.
The following day, Zelensky signed into law a bill placing NABU and SAPO under the authority of the prosecutor general — a figure directly appointed by the president. The bill gives the prosecutor access to all ongoing investigations and the power to shut down cases or reassign them, stripping the agencies of their previously guaranteed independence. According to a blistering statement from NABU, “Ukraine’s anti-corruption infrastructure, built since 2015, will be destroyed.”
The public response was swift and reminiscent of the early days of Ukraine’s Euromaidan protests. Demonstrations ignited across Kyiv, Lviv, Odesa, and Dnipropetrovsk, with protestors carrying signs reading “Stop robbing our future” and “Do you want it like in Russia?” — a clear condemnation of what they view as creeping authoritarianism. Left-wing Ukrainian media outlets have drawn direct parallels to the 2013-2014 uprising that ousted pro-Russian leadership. The Kyiv Independent, a leading voice of Ukraine’s liberal establishment, accused Zelensky of prioritizing personal power over democratic principles, warning of a systemic crackdown on political opposition.
Despite the outrage, Zelensky attempted to contain the fallout by convening a meeting with Ukraine’s top anti-corruption and law enforcement officials. In a post on X, he framed the gathering as a demonstration of unity against Russia, writing: “We all share a common enemy: the Russian occupiers.” Yet NABU released a follow-up statement that flatly contradicted the president’s optimistic portrayal. “From now on, NABU and SAPO are deprived of the guarantees that allowed them to effectively carry out their tasks,” the agency said, calling for legislative action to restore their autonomy.
Even former Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba — once a staunch ally during the early war effort — condemned the move, calling it a “bad day for Ukraine” and urging Zelensky to decide whether to “stand with the people or against them.” Zelensky had already drawn criticism from the left for conscripting anti-corruption activists into the military, further straining ties with pro-Western reformists.
Still, the protests are unlikely to gain the same traction as the Euromaidan movement. Nationalist factions, which were instrumental in 2014, have mostly stayed on the sidelines — or worse, mocked the liberal protestors. Maksin Zhorin, commander of the Azov-descended 3rd Army Corps, praised the SBU raids, while others dismissed the protestors as privileged draft dodgers. One nationalist Telegram account claimed he attended briefly but left disgusted, remarking, “A lot more cops were sent to protect the f*****s,” in reference to LGBT supporters he saw at the demonstration, comparing the state’s leniency toward liberal activists to its aggressive stance toward right-wing protests.
From the international front, the European Union issued a warning through spokesman Guillaume Mercier, signaling that Ukraine’s financial aid could be on the line. “The EU provides significant financial assistance to Ukraine, conditional on progress in transparency, judicial reform, and democratic governance,” he said — a reminder that the West’s patience is not limitless.
The gutting of NABU and SAPO represents a critical turning point. These institutions were once hailed as triumphs of the post-Euromaidan reform era — creations of Western NGOs and a symbol of Ukraine’s break from its Soviet legacy. With their independence now compromised, Zelensky may find that his efforts to consolidate power could fracture both domestic unity and vital Western support at a time when Ukraine can least afford it.
“Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky” by Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken licensed under (CC BY-SA 4.0)
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
All eyes will be on the Supreme Court later this week when the justices conference on Friday to decide whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari on a high-stakes climate lawsuit out of Colorado. The case is a part of the long-running lawfare campaign seeking to extract billions of dollars in jury awards from oil companies on claims of nebulous damages caused by carbon emissions.
In Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, major American energy companies are asking the Supreme Court to decide whether federal law precludes state law nuisance claims targeting interstate and global emissions. This comes as the City and County of Boulder, Colo. sued a long list of energy companies under Colorado state nuisance law for alleged impacts from global climate change.
The Colorado Supreme Court allowed a lower state trial court decision to go through, improbably finding that federal law did not preempt state law claims. The central question hangs on whether the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) preempts state common law public nuisance claims related to the regulation of carbon emissions. In this case, as in at least 10 other cases that have been decided in favor of the defendant companies, the CAA clearly does preempt Colorado law. It seems inevitable that the Supreme Court, if it grants the cert petition, would make the same ruling.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
Such a finding by the Supreme Court would reinforce a 2021 ruling by the Second Circuit Appeals Court that also upheld this longstanding principle of federal law. In City of New York v. Chevron Corp. (2021), the Second Circuit ruled that municipalities may not use state tort law to hold multinational companies liable for climate damages, since global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy. Consequently, the court called for the explicit application of federal common law, with the CAA granting the Environmental Protection Agency – not federal courts – the authority to regulate domestic greenhouse gas emissions. This Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, should weigh in here and find in the same way.
Boulder-associated attorneys have become increasingly open to acknowledging the judicial lawfare inherent in their case, as they try to supplant federal regulatory jurisdiction with litigation meant to force higher energy prices rise for consumers. David Bookbinder, an environmental lawyer associated with the Boulder legal team, said the quiet part out loud in a recent Federalist Society webinar titled “Can State Courts Set Global Climate Policy. “Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products.”
Oh.
While Bookbinder recently distanced himself from the case, no notice of withdrawal had appeared in the court’s records as of this writing. Bookbinder also writes that “Gas prices and climate change policy have become political footballs because neither party in Congress has had the courage to stand up to the oil and gas lobby. Both sides fear the spin machine, so consumers get stuck paying the bill.”
Let’s be honest: The “spin machine” works in all directions. Make no mistake about it, consumers are already getting stuck paying the bill related to this long running lawfare campaign even though the defendants have repeatedly been found not to be liable in case after case. The many millions of dollars in needless legal costs sustained by the dozens of defendants named in these cases ultimately get passed to consumers via higher energy costs. This isn’t some evil conspiracy by the oil companies: It is Business Management 101.
Because the climate alarm lobby hasn’t been able to force its long-sought national carbon tax through the legislative process, sympathetic activists and plaintiff firms now pursue this backdoor effort in the nation’s courts. But their problem is that the law on this is crystal clear, and it is long past time for the Supreme Court to step in and put a stop to this serial abuse of the system.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
President Trump revealed Wednesday afternoon that U.S. authorities intercepted a Cuba-bound oil tanker off the Venezuelan coast, a dramatic move aimed at tightening the squeeze on illicit oil networks operating throughout the region. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump described the vessel as “a very large tanker — the largest one ever seized in action,” hinting that more developments are coming. He declined to get into specifics, saying only that the operation happened “for a very good reason.” When asked about the tanker’s crude, Trump didn’t overcomplicate it. “Well, we keep it, I guess,” he said.
According to a U.S. official familiar with the operation, the seizure was executed by the Coast Guard with support from the U.S. Navy after a federal judge green-lit the warrant roughly two weeks ago. Another official told the New York Times the ship — identified as the Skipper — had been sailing under a falsified flag and has a documented history of trafficking illicit Iranian oil. The vessel, although carrying Venezuelan crude at the time, was seized because of those Iranian smuggling ties, not because of any direct connection to Nicolás Maduro’s regime.
Today, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations, and the United States Coast Guard, with support from the Department of War, executed a seizure warrant for a crude oil tanker used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran. For multiple… pic.twitter.com/dNr0oAGl5x
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) December 10, 2025
Vanguard, a UK-based maritime risk firm, confirmed Wednesday that the Skipper fits the profile of a tanker previously sanctioned by the United States for operating under the alias Adisa while moving banned Iranian oil. A source speaking to Politico said the ship was on its way to Cuba, where state-run Cubametales intended to flip the cargo to Asian brokers — an increasingly common workaround as U.S. sanctions isolate both Havana and Caracas from traditional buyers. With most Venezuelan product now flowing to China under the sanctions regime, oil traders began recalibrating almost immediately after the news broke. Prices ticked upward modestly as markets waited to learn whether any Venezuelan crude was on board and how much would be effectively taken off the table.
Maduro, for his part, avoided directly mentioning the seizure during a speech later Wednesday, instead railing against the United States and claiming Venezuela’s military stands ready “to break the teeth of the North American empire, if necessary.” His bluster did little to obscure the reality: the Trump administration just disrupted yet another shadowy oil operation linking Caracas, Havana, and Tehran — and sent a clear signal that these networks will be confronted, tanker by tanker.
Media bound to pay the price for selling their freedom to (selectively) offend
Sometimes An Ingrate Nation Pt. 2: The Great One Makes His Choice
Recent price declines don’t solve Toronto’s housing affordability crisis
From Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
Health2 days agoThe Data That Doesn’t Exist
-
Business2 days agoCanada Can Finally Profit From LNG If Ottawa Stops Dragging Its Feet
-
Business2 days agoThe Climate-Risk Industrial Complex and the Manufactured Insurance Crisis
-
Crime2 days agoInside the Fortified Sinaloa-Linked Compound Canada Still Can’t Seize After 12 Years of Legal War
-
Automotive12 hours agoThe $50 Billion Question: EVs Never Delivered What Ottawa Promised
-
National2 days agoLiberal bill “targets Christians” by removing religious exemption in hate-speech law
-
Energy2 days agoLNG NOW! Canada must act fast to prosper in changing times
-
Health1 day agoUS podcaster Glenn Beck extends a lifeline to a Saskatchewan woman waiting for MAiD