Politics

Zelenskyy’s Halo Cracks as Corruption Scandal Erodes Western Sympathy

Published

2 months ago

December 8, 2025

Zelenskyy's Halo Cracks as Corruption Scandal Erodes Western Sympathy

KYIV – Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, once seen simply as the determined leader defying Vladimir Putin, now faces a serious shift in his narrative. A massive corruption scandal involves his inner circle and has led even his most committed Western backers to express deep concern.

Russian missile strikes cause frequent power outages across Ukraine; meanwhile, the uncovering of a $100 million alleged embezzlement scheme at Energoatom, the state-run nuclear energy company, has shifted Zelenskyy’s public perception.

He has gone from wartime icon to a bureaucrat struggling with internal conflict. Key media outlets, including The New York Times and The Economist, are focusing scrutiny on the issue, which could threaten the continuous supply of international aid to Ukraine.

The investigation, nicknamed Operation Midas, exploded in mid-November 2025. It went public like a bomb hitting the president’s command center. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) revealed wiretaps and evidence detailing a criminal network.

This group allegedly diverted kickbacks from energy contracts intended to protect Ukraine’s nuclear facilities from Russian sabotage. At the center of the allegations was Timur Mindich. He is a media executive and co-founder of the TV studio that launched Zelenskyy’s acting career before the presidency.

Mindich reportedly fled Kyiv just hours before authorities raided his home. He is accused of funneling the money through channels linked to Russia. This fact creates a painful irony for a country fighting to push back Moscow’s invasion.

The investigation did not stop with minor players. It quickly reached high-ranking cabinet members. The scrutiny culminated in the resignation of Andriy Yermak, Zelenskyy’s powerful chief of staff and foreign envoy, following a police search of his home on November 28. Before this, Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko and Justice Minister Svitlana Hrynchuk had already stepped down at the president’s request.

Their departures were an attempt to contain the spread of the scandal. Petro Poroshenko’s European Solidarity party issued a scathing critique, calling the money “blood money.” They pointed out the stark contrast between soldiers rationing ammunition at the front and elites allegedly profiting from stolen energy deals.

From Reformer to Figure of Controversy

Zelenskyy won the presidency in 2019, promising to eliminate corruption. His appeal as an outsider strongly rejected Ukraine’s establishment, dominated by oligarchs. While campaigning, he famously promised, “I will buy back every hryvnia stolen from the people.”

However, after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, the war overshadowed domestic issues. Western nations, which embraced Zelenskyy as a hero, mostly ignored entrenched corruption in Kyiv. Billions in aid flowed with minimal oversight. By late 2025, the U.S. alone had provided over $175 billion, often channeled through opaque state entities such as Energoatom.

This period of neglect ended as detailed evidence of the scandal emerged. Intercepted calls, over a thousand hours of them, revealed that conspirators, using code names, pressured contractors. They demanded cuts of 20 to 30 percent on projects to build shelters, which were vital for wartime energy protection.

Ukrainians were already enduring mandatory blackouts, with Russian drones having disabled 70 percent of the power grid. The alleged misuse of funds meant to boost energy resilience, instead of financing luxurious homes in Cyprus, amplified public outrage.

Opposition lawmakers, limited by martial law’s freeze on elections, quickly seized the opportunity. A cross-party alliance formed the first serious challenge to the president since the invasion, declaring that Zelenskyy’s cabinet was “unprofessional and corrupt.”

The New York Times Report: Oversight Undermined

A devastating article in The New York Times, published December 5, titled “Zelensky’s Government Sabotaged Oversight, Allowing Corruption in Ukraine to Fester,” delivered the sharpest blow. The investigative report, based on interviews with fired board members, internal documents, and diplomatic sources, portrayed deliberate negligence.

To secure large amounts of Western funding, Ukraine promised to establish independent supervisory boards. These boards, staffed by experts from the U.S. and the EU, were intended to review spending at major state firms like Energoatom, Ukrenergo, and the Defense Procurement Agency. Called “guardrails” by a former advisor, these panels were supposed to audit management, approve contracts, and prevent corruption.

Instead, Zelenskyy’s administration reportedly disabled the boards internally. Essential independent positions were left unfilled or filled with loyalists to the president. Boards were unable to reach a quorum. At Energoatom, a 2024 revision to the company charter stripped the board of its authority to veto the hiring of the CEO, allegedly opening the door for the kickback operation.

One former board member told the Times that the boards “weren’t real.” Similar complaints surfaced at Ukrenergo, where political interference reportedly approved $200 million in questionable arms transactions. The result was that hundreds of millions of dollars vanished in the obscurity of wartime spending, even as donors like the EU offered €50 billion in reconstruction funds tied to reform measures.

Zelenskyy’s team tried to shift the blame to the very oversight mechanisms they had weakened. The Times likened this tactic to “blaming the lifeguard for the drowning.” The newspaper’s investigation concluded the problem was systemic sabotage, not merely a few bad actors.

The president’s unsuccessful attempt in July 2025 to weaken NABU, blocked by Brussels, was cited as clear evidence. The paper’s editorial stated that the president who promised to stop corruption had instead become its “enabler.” This was a significant departure from earlier praise for Zelenskyy’s resolve.

Media Focus Shifts on Zelenskyy

The Times was not alone in its critical assessment. The Economist cautioned on November 17 that the “huge corruption scandal threatens Ukraine’s government,” characterizing it as the greatest challenge Zelenskyy has faced since the invasion. BBC News ran the headline “Major corruption scandal engulfs top Zelensky allies,” highlighting the resignations against the backdrop of blackouts freezing millions.

The Guardian examined the relationship between Zelenskyy and Yermak, suggesting it was now “toxic” following the raids, which cast a shadow over peace negotiations. Even NPR, generally supportive of Kyiv, reported on December 4 about a “corruption investigation rocking Ukraine’s leadership” and noted how the probe “hits close to Zelenskyy” after his actions against anti-corruption bodies.

This change in media tone reflects general exhaustion and skepticism. As polarized debates about U.S. aid packages intensify in Congress, with some Republican opponents using the scandal as a reason to cut funding, European outlets, including Politico, have praised NABU’s success. They credit the independence of these agencies for revealing issues the administration failed to tackle.

Colleagues described the event as “The most damaging scandal of his presidency,” stressing how it diminishes the moral standing Kyiv depends on. Analysts like Jakub Parusinski of KI Insights argue that Ukrainians, having experienced Soviet-era theft, view corruption during wartime as treason. Public sentiment shows Zelenskyy’s approval rating falling to 55 percent. While this is still respectable, it is far below the 90 percent support he enjoyed at the start of the invasion.

Aid in Jeopardy: The Global Impact

The scandal has consequences reaching Brussels and Washington, where anti-corruption metrics determine Ukraine’s EU accession hopes. While a spokesperson for the European Commission acknowledged NABU’s raids as a sign of reform progress, sources have indicated that some funds have been paused.

Approximately €5 billion in grants are reportedly under review. NATO hopefuls worry about defense procurement scandals affecting the flow of weapons. Reconstruction officials in London and Berlin are demanding revisions to governance boards before releasing billions for rebuilding.

Zelenskyy, known for his performative approach, has attempted damage control, sanctioning Mindich, vowing to “cleanse” energy companies, and delivering a televised address. He insisted, “Russia wants us divided. We won’t give them the satisfaction.”

However, opposition legislators are demanding a full institutional purge, and activists are protesting under “No More Blood Money” banners. The wartime unity the president maintained is fracturing. In a December 6 analysis for the Atlantic Council, experts encouraged Zelenskyy to take full responsibility, suggesting that genuine reforms would serve as a defense against Putinism.

For Ukraine, a country where corruption has destroyed more potential than military attacks, this issue is far more than just a political drama. It is an existential threat. Zelenskyy, the former entertainer turned national leader, now navigates a crisis that could severely tarnish his legacy.

Will the increased critical reporting by Western media finally force meaningful change, or will it simply accelerate the reduction of aid as Ukraine’s front lines remain fragile? In the cold reality of Kyiv, the answer feels as pressing as the next air raid siren.

Politics

Democrats Join Republicans to Advance Contempt Resolution Against Bill Clinton

Nine Democrats Buck Leadership on Epstein-Related Measure, Showing Growing Tensions Over Openness and Accountability

Published

11 hours ago

January 22, 2026

VORNews

Contempt Resolution Against Bill Clinton, Democrats

WASHINGTON.D.C. – House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Democrats split sharply on Wednesday as nearly half of them joined Republicans to advance a resolution recommending former President Bill Clinton be held in contempt of Congress.

The committee vote passed 34-8, with two members voting “present.” The move follows Clinton’s refusal to sit for a closed-door deposition after the committee issued a subpoena tied to its continuing review of Jeffrey Epstein’s network and how federal authorities handled related matters.

In a separate vote, the committee also advanced a contempt resolution involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That measure moved forward 28-15, with three Democrats crossing the aisle. Still, the broader Democratic support for the Bill Clinton resolution pointed to rising frustration, even inside the party, over what critics call resistance to cooperation in a case that has held public attention for years.

Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) called the vote a win for accountability. “Republicans and Democrats on the House Oversight Committee acted today to hold former President Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress for willfully defying lawful and bipartisan subpoenas,” Comer said in a statement.

“By voting to hold the Clintons in contempt, the Committee sent a clear message: no one is above the law, and justice must be applied equally, regardless of position, pedigree, or prestige.”

Bill Clinton Linked to Epstein

Republicans issued the subpoenas late last year as part of a wider inquiry into Epstein’s sex trafficking operation, his ties to influential people, and claimed breakdowns in federal oversight. Bill Clinton has been linked to Epstein for years because flight logs show Clinton traveled on Epstein’s private jet multiple times in the early 2000s. Clinton has repeatedly said he had no knowledge of, or involvement in, Epstein’s crimes.

Lawyers for the Clintons offered limited cooperation, including written answers or a private meeting in New York with only the chair and ranking member present. Comer dismissed those offers as unacceptable, saying they would amount to special treatment. “They believe their last name entitles them to special treatment,” Comer said before the vote.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) worked to line up votes against the resolutions, but nine Democrats still supported the Bill Clinton measure: Reps. Maxwell Frost (Fla.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), Summer Lee (Pa.), Stephen Lynch (Mass.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Emily Randall (Wash.), Lateefah Simon (Calif.), Melanie Stansbury (N.M.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.). Several of those votes came from the progressive wing, including Pressley, Lee, and Tlaib, signaling that some members prioritized openness in the Epstein matter over party unity.

On the Hillary Clinton resolution, only three Democrats sided with Republicans: Stansbury, Lee, and Tlaib. That smaller break showed stronger support among Democrats for her position.

Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and other Democrats who opposed the measures argued the investigation has turned political. They pointed to unredacted Epstein files and said the contempt push looked like payback.

Strain Inside the Democratic Party

Some Democrats also suggested holding Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt over claims that documents were being withheld. During a tense markup session broadcast live on C-SPAN, members traded sharp remarks, with one Democrat calling the effort “political score-settling.”

Democrats who broke ranks said the Epstein case demands fuller disclosure and real accountability. “Transparency matters more than protecting past leaders,” said a source close to the progressive wing, speaking anonymously.

Next, both resolutions move to the full House for a floor vote expected in the coming weeks. If the House approves them, the matter would be referred to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution.

That process can carry penalties of up to $100,000 in fines or up to one year in jail. With Republicans controlling the House and a Trump administration DOJ, passage appears likely, though any effort to enforce contempt against a former president would be uncharted territory.

Political observers say the vote highlights real strain inside the Democratic Party. Younger and more progressive lawmakers appear more willing to step away from the Clinton era, as public pressure for answers in the Epstein case continues. Bill Clinton, now 79, has kept a lower profile in recent years and has focused on work tied to the Clinton Foundation.

Full House to Vote

Hillary Clinton’s team called the proceedings “a partisan witch hunt” in a short statement. Representatives for Bill Clinton repeated his earlier denials of wrongdoing connected to Epstein.

As the resolutions advance, the episode shows how older controversies can return with new momentum. The Epstein investigation, stirred again by recent document releases, has pulled in other major names and also fueled conspiracy theories across the political spectrum.

If the full House votes to hold Bill Clinton in contempt, it would be the first referral of its kind against a former president in the modern era. Legal experts say contempt referrals are unusual and often symbolic, but a DOJ that wants to pursue the case could raise the stakes.

For Democrats, the split adds pressure heading into the midterms and raises fresh questions about party discipline under Jeffries. Republicans, meanwhile, cast the vote as proof they support equal justice and holding powerful figures accountable.

The House floor debate is likely to be heated, and it could force more Democrats to choose between standing with party figures and backing demands for answers in one of the country’s most persistent controversies.

Related News:

Epstein Files Get Broken Down By Alex Jones and Nick Fuentes

Politics

Chatham House in Panic Over Trump and Western Alliance

Published

1 day ago

January 21, 2026

VORNews

LONDON – In her annual lecture at Chatham House last week, Director Bronwen Maddox delivered a blunt message about the world under President Donald Trump’s second term. She said the United States is driving what she called “a revolution” in policy, and she didn’t soften the conclusion. “It is not grandiose to call this the end of the Western alliance.”

Her comments spread fast across diplomatic circles and transatlantic news outlets. They land as the Trump administration rolls out moves that, to many observers, break with decades of US-led cooperation. New tariffs aimed at European partners, sharper pressure on the Federal Reserve, and high-profile factory-focused visits at home all point to a different kind of America on the world stage. Critics like Maddox see a widening split with allies. Supporters see a course correction after years of drift.

Maddox’s talk, promoted under the theme “Trump: the end of the Western alliance?”, described a world shaped by major power rivalry, with the US and China at the center. In her view, old alliances hold less weight in this setup. She also defined the Western alliance as more than a defense pact. To her, it is a group tied by shared beliefs: personal liberty, freedom of thought and religion, constitutional democracy, and free trade.

In lines shared widely from the lecture, Maddox said the break is already happening. She described the alliance as a group of countries that once felt they shared principles, not just interests, and that those principles helped fuel prosperity and global influence.

She pointed to rising tariffs against allies and what she described as open contempt for Europe appearing in official US security language. She also raised fears about bigger escalations. Maddox said that if the US took aggressive action toward territory such as Greenland, it would breach the UN Charter and could end NATO as it exists today.

Her delivery stood out for how direct it was. After the lecture, Maddox said many Europeans had hoped the shift would fade. She argued that recent actions make that hope harder to defend.

Trump’s Detroit Stop Puts Manufacturing Front and Center

A few days before Maddox spoke, Trump visited Detroit, Michigan, on January 13, 2026. The trip highlighted his main domestic message: bring industry back and reward US workers. He toured Ford’s River Rouge Complex, long seen as a symbol of US manufacturing, then spoke to the Detroit Economic Club.

Trump praised what he called a rebound in manufacturing and linked it to tariffs and efforts to move jobs back from overseas. He pointed to low gas prices, a strong stock market, and signs that the trade deficit was narrowing. Speaking to business leaders and autoworkers, he said US workers were doing well, and the auto industry was coming back home.

Protests followed the visit, but the trip fit his “America First” storyline. Analysts say that approach collides with the post-World War II model, where US leadership often meant open markets and major security support for allies, even when it felt costly at home.

A Growing Fight With the Federal Reserve

An added source of tension is Trump’s conflict with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. In recent weeks, the administration has opened a criminal investigation into Powell, tied to testimony about the Fed’s headquarters renovation. Powell pushed back in public. He called the investigation a “pretext” meant to sway interest-rate choices, and he warned that it threatens the Fed’s independence.

The dispute has escalated in a way the Fed rarely sees. It has included subpoenas and talk of possible charges. Trump has criticized Powell for years, saying rates should drop faster to support growth, especially with tariffs reshaping trade and prices. In a rare video statement, Powell said the administration is trying to force monetary policy to match the president’s goals.

Markets have taken notice. Critics across parties warn that weakening central bank independence can raise inflation risks and add instability. Some former Fed officials and a number of Republicans have also said the pressure campaign is dangerous.

America’s Role Abroad, From Global Leader to Narrower Focus

These moves connect to a broader Trump argument: that the US has been in decline for decades and needs a reset. The administration’s direction puts more weight on domestic industry, less dependence on foreign supply chains, and tougher demands on allies. Backers describe it as moving the US toward a more regional focus, instead of acting as the main global backstop.

Supporters say the shift is meant to help households and workers. Policy ideas floated in recent weeks include a one-year cap of 10% on credit card interest rates, a ban on large institutional investors buying single-family homes, and healthcare changes aimed at lower premiums and drug costs through direct payments and more price transparency.

Trump has also talked about lowering electricity costs through deals with tech firms, along with other cost-of-living steps, including possible stimulus checks. Those ideas have drawn pushback from industries such as banking and drug makers.

Maddox and other critics argue that this kind of one-sided approach comes at the worst time. They say China’s rise calls for tighter coordination among US and European partners. In her view, even if some moves strengthen the US in the short term, driving away allies can hand rivals more room to grow.

Across Europe, the message is sinking in that a more inward-looking America may not be a temporary phase. Calls are growing for stronger European independence on defense and foreign policy. Maddox urged the UK and other countries to take firmer positions toward both Washington and Beijing.

Debate continues over whether Trump’s changes will rebuild US strength or speed up global fragmentation. Maddox’s lecture offered a clear marker either way: the post-1945 order that many leaders treated as stable now looks like it is breaking apart.

Politics

President Trump Addresses ICE Actions Amid Minnesota Unrest

Published

1 day ago

January 21, 2026

VORNews

Trump Addresses ICE Actions Amid Minnesota Unrest

WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Donald Trump backed aggressive Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions in Minnesota during a tense White House press briefing on January 20, 2026.

His comments came as protests over federal immigration raids grew into major unrest across the Twin Cities. The push is part of a large federal effort called Operation Metro Surge, which has sent thousands of agents into the state and triggered riots, lawsuits, and a nationwide political fight.

During a long briefing that marked one year into his second term, Trump praised ICE operations in Minnesota. He said agents had made more than 3,000 arrests of people he described as criminal suspects in recent weeks. He framed ICE agents as loyal public servants doing tough work, while saying errors can happen when situations move fast.

Trump also spoke about the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis resident who was killed earlier in January during an ICE action. He called the death “a tragedy” and said he felt “horribly” when he heard about it. He added that he understood “both sides,” but argued agents often work in dangerous conditions and shouldn’t be blamed without context.

Insurrection Act Talk, Court Limits, and DOJ Appeal

Trump described some anti-ICE protesters as “insurrectionists,” comparing the unrest to past episodes of violence. He signaled he could consider using the Insurrection Act if the situation worsens.

Protests have included disruptions at public events, calls for economic blackouts from labor unions and community groups, and clashes with federal personnel. A federal judge recently issued an injunction that limits certain enforcement tactics, including arrests of peaceful demonstrators and the use of crowd-control measures without clear justification. The Department of Justice has appealed that order.

Operation Metro Surge has centered heavily on neighborhoods with large Somali immigrant communities. That focus has drawn strong criticism from local leaders, including Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who represents the area. Trump has made Minnesota a central testing ground for his mass deportation plans, deploying about 3,000 federal agents even as state officials pushed back.

Tensions have grown as Rep. Ilhan Omar and her husband, Tim Mynett, face scrutiny from House Republicans and federal authorities over their personal finances. The House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), opened an inquiry into what Republicans call Omar’s “skyrocketing family wealth.”

Disclosures, Rose Lake Capital, and Fraud Questions

Financial disclosures from 2024 reportedly show a sharp jump in household assets. The increase is tied to Mynett’s consulting firm, Rose Lake Capital LLC, with values reportedly rising from small amounts to between $5 million and $25 million in a short span. Some reports claim the couple’s net worth may have reached $30 million.

Investigators are reviewing whether the gains were properly reported under federal ethics rules and whether they connect to wider concerns in the district. Those concerns include a reported $9 billion fraud scandal tied to Somali social services.

Trump has publicly called Omar “crooked,” tying the investigation to claims of fraud and questionable business dealings. Omar has denied being a millionaire and says Republicans are targeting her for political reasons. The Oversight probe could lead to subpoenas for Mynett, adding another layer to the ongoing fight over ethics and transparency in Washington.

Trump also used the briefing to revive his long-running push to acquire Greenland, a Danish territory. He threatened new tariffs on several European countries as pressure for a deal.

He said the US plans to impose a 10% tariff on imports from Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Norway, and the United Kingdom starting February 1, 2026. He warned the rate would rise to 25% by June 1 if no agreement is reached for what he called the “complete and total purchase” of Greenland.

Europe Calls It Blackmail as Retaliation Plans Form

The tariff threat has angered European leaders, with some calling it “blackmail.” The EU is preparing possible countermeasures, including the use of its anti-coercion tool, which could target US exports or limit market access.

The standoff has shaken markets and added strain inside NATO. Leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have signaled they’re ready to respond if the tariffs take effect. Trump first floated the Greenland idea in his first term, and it has returned as a clear sign of his hardline approach abroad.

Together, the Minnesota ICE crackdown, the investigations surrounding Omar, and the tariff fight with Europe show how turbulent the start of 2026 has been under Trump’s second administration. It’s a mix of domestic enforcement battles at home and economic pressure campaigns overseas.