Political and Institutional Aspects of Trump’s Anti-Corruption Agenda Towards Zelensky
Trump has never been a goody-two-shoes in politics, and his manner of shocking or even scandalizing those around him has long been known.
Trump has never been a goody-two-shoes in politics, and his manner of shocking or even scandalizing those around him has long been known. However, if we set aside the part of his overly polite rhetoric towards Russia — which many explain as an attempt to lull a watchful beast — the remaining part is somehow blatantly ignored in terms of Ukraine’s national interests. Let’s try to break down why Donald Trump publicly demands a tougher anti-corruption policy from Ukraine and what rational grain might lie within his claims.
It is important to separate two layers of the issue:
The pressing need to eliminate corruption and the embezzlement of foreign aid, which have significantly weakened the country’s position both on the front lines and on the global stage.
Personal motives and political games that influence how and with what wording Trump presents his demands.
What exactly does Donald Trump demand from Zelensky?
Audit and Transparency in the Use of Aid
Trump (and a significant portion of his political allies in the U.S.) believes that financial injections into Ukraine should not be stopped but should be controlled much more strictly — up to and including a public audit of all tranches and a real, not a sham, investigation into cases of embezzlement, with clear identification of all those involved in theft.
Trump claims he “does not see” where a substantial portion of the already allocated funds has gone (figures like “half of all aid” or “a significant share of it” are mentioned). At the same time, he does not rule out the possibility that a significant portion never even reached Ukraine.
Punish Those Guilty of Corruption (Even if They Are at the Very Top of Power)
Trump demands that Zelensky ensure that all individuals involved in embezzlement scandals (whether of their own country’s funds or American aid) face the harshest punishment. This fully aligns with Zelensky’s initiative to equate corruption with treason.
The crackdown affects both the “old elites” who came to power before 2014 and later officials whom Trump considers “successors of the corrupt model.”
Remove “Grant-Eaters” and Agents of the U.S. Democratic Party
Among Trump supporters, the belief is widespread that after 2014, the influence of structures associated with George Soros and the U.S. Democratic Party in Ukraine increased.
Trump claims that representatives of these groups allegedly pushed a “foreign agenda” in Ukrainian state administration, actively spending both Western grants and Ukraine’s own resources.
According to Trump, they not only cooperated with the Democrats in the U.S. but also “devoured” the country’s finances, provoking a rise in debt. There is no way to argue with him on this — it is a fact. These initiatives, if they did not slow Ukraine down, at least led to the situation where representatives of this group, in their “uncompromising fight” against corruption, actually took control of it.
Purge the Parliament of Corrupt Officials
Among the high-profile names mentioned by Trump’s camp is, for example, David Arakhamia and other MPs suspected of lobbying narrow interests and engaging in dubious financial schemes.
Trump believes that “democratic procedures” (such as elections or internal investigations) should lead to the cleansing of parliament from corrupt politicians, turning it into a truly functioning legislative body.
How Do Trump’s Demands Benefit Ukraine?
At first glance, Trump’s statements sound harsh and sometimes even brutal. But if we put aside personal animosity, political intrigues, and the sharpness of his remarks, there are several points that could actually benefit Ukraine.
1. Fighting Corruption Is a Fundamental Demand of Society
Ukrainians have long been tired of corruption. It is no secret that since gaining independence, one of the country’s key problems has been the lack of transparency in governance and the embezzlement of state funds at all levels by political elites who, even after Ukraine became independent, never lost control over it.
It should be noted that in the last elections, 73% of Ukrainians voted not for Zelensky, but against corruption, which reached catastrophic levels under Poroshenko.
Western partners (not just Trump) have long insisted on real, not decorative, reforms: the creation of a functioning Anti-Corruption Court, reforming the prosecutor’s office, cleaning up customs, etc. Trump merely voices these demands in a much more radical and straightforward manner.
Auditing aid is a completely normal international practice. Any country that receives funding from external donors always agrees to control mechanisms. The more thorough the audit and the more transparent the reporting, the higher the trust in the recipient state. And ultimately, the more Ukraine and the front will receive.
2. Eliminating the “Eternal Elites” Is a Chance for a New Political Generation
“Grant-eaters,” agents of the Democratic Party, and “old elites” — perhaps some of these labels are political propaganda. But there is also a real problem: for decades, the same clans have remained in power in Ukraine, only slightly changing their party labels.
All these “Servants,” “Voices,” “Batkivshchyna,” “UDARs” — are franchises that have neither ideology nor, most importantly, the desire to represent and defend the interests of the Ukrainian people! They were all created by financial-industrial groups to represent and lobby their interests.
The arrival of new, younger, and less corrupt politicians could make life easier for the Ukrainian people, who have repeatedly demanded a complete reset and clearer rules.
3. Cleaning Up Parliament and Officials Will Strengthen Institutions
Many deputies labeled as “corrupt” regularly appear in journalistic investigations. In the Ukrainian press and public opinion, a question has long been brewing:
Why are there no serious proceedings against them and no real verdicts?
Why has no one ever been genuinely held accountable for their crimes?
Why do courts delay cases, and why do the prosecutor’s office and NABU lose interest in them?
Freeing seats from “scandalous figures” gives a chance for representatives of the people’s interests to enter parliament instead of lobbyists for oligarchic groups!
State institutions will become more effective if they are truly stripped of their corrupt bosses’ “protection” and if the deputies who have spent years in the Rada for “business cover” or “access to financial flows” are replaced.
What Are the Objections Against “Trump’s Demands”?
Despite the fact that the measures mentioned above (audit, government cleansing, punishment of corrupt officials) seem reasonable, many Ukrainians, as well as Western politicians, fear them in the form in which Trump presents them. Why?
1. Suspicions of Personal Motive and “Revenge”
Trump is known for not forgetting grievances. He is 100% convinced that Poroshenko, and later Zelensky, “framed” him in the impeachment story, and now he is guided not so much by the desire to eradicate corruption in Ukraine as by the desire to get back at his offenders.
When there is an obvious element of a “personal war” behind noble words about reform, this truly raises concerns.
After all, if the goal is not only to save Ukraine from corruption but also to “remove” a government inconvenient for Trump, that is indeed troubling.
2. Changing Power in the Midst of War: A Risk to Defense?
Ukraine is engaged in heavy combat against Russian-fascist occupiers. Theoretically, a large-scale “purge” of parliament, ministers, and officials, along with simultaneous elections, could cause political instability at a critical moment.
There is growing concern that while the country undergoes a government restructuring, problems could arise at the front, and Moscow would not hesitate to take advantage of this.
3. The Risk of “Cleansing” for Personal Interests
If Trump or anyone else is the one “calling the shots,” there is a risk that, under the banner of fighting corruption, all those personally inconvenient to him will be removed.
This is once again a problem. But on the other hand, there is a possibility that patriots and professionals might come to power in Ukraine.
Real anti-corruption efforts should not become a tool for political raiding. Even the most corrupt officials should be removed by law and court decisions, not according to a “list” compiled in another country.
On the other hand, who can doubt that in our power hierarchy, there are individuals who are completely uninvolved in corruption schemes?
4. Ultimatum Style and Threats
Trump often sets conditions: “Either you do this, or we reconsider our support.”
In wartime conditions, this looks like blackmail: “Hand over your elites for destruction (or leave yourselves), or we will cut off military and financial aid.”
It sounds harsh — but fair! For the first time, the elites are being forced to pay for their mistakes! Until now, it was always the Ukrainian people who bore the cost of all errors.
For Ukraine, losing U.S. assistance is a huge risk because dependence on Western support is now enormous, and any suspension of supplies could have severe consequences on the front.
Where Is the “Double Standard” in Trump’s Position?
Despite the rationality of demands for transparency and anti-corruption efforts, Trump has several weak spots.
In the U.S., Trump himself has not always been a model of transparent financial management. Remember the numerous investigations into his tax returns, charitable foundations, etc.
Supporting a “strong hand” contradicts the “democratic values” that Trump himself occasionally references — though not as often as one might wish.
Are Trump’s Demands Beneficial for Ukraine?
Conducting an Aid Audit
An audit in itself is a necessary measure. It will help both Ukraine manage its finances more effectively and Washington (or other donors) identify corrupt individuals on their own side. And they do exist.
It is important that the audit does not turn into a campaign to discredit Ukraine for Trump’s “revenge.” Independent auditors should work on it, not a “list from an office in the White House.”
Punishing Corrupt Officials
Ukraine has long needed systemic cleansing even without external pressure.
If, under Trump’s (or other Western partners’) pressure, serious criminal cases finally start, society will not only support this but approve of it.
But the courts must operate according to the letter of the law, not external “blacklists.” Otherwise, instead of reform, there will be a banal political purge.
Resetting the Elites
Of course, we would like to believe that new, honest politicians will replace the old corrupt “feudal lords” and “oligarchs’ servants.”
However, mass dismissals or the dissolution of parliament during wartime is very dangerous.
A balance must be found between the need for renewal and maintaining stability on the front.
How Are Trump’s Demands Harmful to Ukraine?
To summarize briefly:
The demands themselves (audit, punishment for corruption, elite cleansing) are not bad — in fact, they are excellent!
Moreover, these steps have long been awaited by both Ukrainians and many friends of Ukraine in the West.
The problem is that they are presented in an ultimatum-heavy, harsh manner, through the lens of Trump’s personal hostility and political games.
This could lead to:
Shock-induced destabilization in the midst of war.
External governance, where decisions on who should be removed from power are made not by Ukrainians themselves.
Selective purges, where not all “corrupt officials” are punished — only those inconvenient to the new force.
Even worse, if in case of “disobedience,” Trump actually cuts off Ukraine’s vital aid. Then the country would be caught between a hammer (Russian aggression) and an anvil (U.S. political pressure), risking the loss of its independence and sovereignty.
Final Takeaway
Trump’s threat to “deal with corrupt officials” in Ukraine and “cut off” funding seems harsh to some of society, but perhaps it is the only way to force the “elite” to take reform seriously.
After all, let’s be honest — Zelensky had time to do this before the war, as did all his predecessors. But none of them ever implemented real reforms or fought corruption.
Every new elite simply replaced the old ones in their schemes, and that was where the “fight” ended.
There is nothing wrong with demanding an audit of aid, removing corrupt officials and MPs, and preventing “family clans” from usurping power.
On the contrary, this aligns with the expectations of many Ukrainians who took to the Maidan with slogans about “dignity” and an “honest state”!
However, the key BUT: such processes must take place within the legal framework, considering Ukraine’s interests and the real military situation.
Any reform or “personnel purge” dictated by an external ultimatum (especially with a touch of personal hostility) threatens chaos in a state already fighting a brutal war.
If, however, this reform is carried out with surgical precision and with the participation of civil society, it could result in the replacement of truly corrupt old elites with new ones!
And that would significantly change the situation both in the country and on the front lines!
Ideally, of course, Ukraine should have long ago demonstrated its own ability and willingness to pursue a tough anti-corruption policy and transparent audits.
Then any external pressure (and even Trump’s possible “revenge”) would not seem like foreign coercion, but rather, his initiative would be a mere support for internal processes that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian society already wants to see.
Conclusion:
Trump’s anti-corruption demands, in and of themselves, seem entirely reasonable: remove corrupt officials and audit financial aid.
However, the execution of these demands carries potential risks for Ukraine, especially at a time when its very survival as a state is at stake.
The best approach would be to use this challenge as an opportunity to demonstrate real, rather than formal, commitment to anti-corruption reforms.