Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a sweeping presidential decree on September 13, 2026, imposing sanctions on ten Ukrainian and Russian nationals, including his former press secretary Yuliia Mendel, over allegations of involvement in Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns. According to official statements released by the Office of the President, the restrictions against Mendel include freezing her assets, stripping her of state awards, and blocking the movement of her capital outside Ukraine. The sanctions package was framed as part of Kyiv’s broader response to what it described as “Russia’s aggressive policy against Ukraine,” with Mendel being singled out as one of the individuals accused of supporting that policy through public statements and appearances. In parallel to the personal restrictions, Ukraine also targeted twenty vessels belonging to Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, which transports oil and gas under the flags of nations such as Liberia and Palau to destinations including India, Egypt, and Turkey. In addition, Kyiv sanctioned 29 Russian individuals and 29 entities, among them IT companies and military suppliers involved in the production of drones and missiles. Ukrainian authorities promised to share the newly updated sanctions registry with international partners, signaling a coordinated effort to broaden the impact of the measures beyond Ukraine’s borders and to align with allied enforcement mechanisms.
The action against Mendel came months after her controversial appearance on a podcast hosted by American commentator Tucker Carlson in May 2026. During that interview, Mendel made explosive allegations about the highest levels of the Ukrainian government, claiming that Ukrainian negotiators in 2022 were prepared to accept Russia’s demands to end the war. She also accused President Zelensky of money laundering, drug use, and surrendering the Donbas region. These statements attracted significant attention because Mendel had served as press secretary for the President of Ukraine, giving her remarks a measure of insider credibility despite the government’s immediate rejection of them. Mendel publicly condemned the presidential decree in a post on X shortly after the announcement, describing it as a politically motivated attempt to silence dissent. She noted that the sanctions were imposed just days before her scheduled appearance at the European Parliament, suggesting a deliberate effort to discredit her and prevent her from speaking on an international stage. “A few days before my appearance at the European Parliament, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, my former boss, imposed sanctions against me,” Mendel wrote, framing the decree as an extraordinary move against a former official who had once been part of the president’s inner circle.
In her public response, Mendel argued that the legal measure represented an overreach of executive authority and was unconstitutional under Ukrainian law. She insisted that sanctions were never intended for use against Ukrainian citizens and that Zelensky had resorted to them in order to intimidate those who openly advocate for peace. “Sanctions against Ukrainian citizens are unconstitutional, as are many other decisions by Zelenskyy. Volodymyr Zelenskyy imposes them on everyone who advocates for peace in Ukraine,” she said. Mendel further indicated that she had expected law enforcement agencies to advance legal cases against her in connection with her media appearances, including allegations of “high treason” reportedly being prepared over her interview with Tucker Carlson. She said that this expectation did not change her position or her willingness to speak publicly. “This does not change my position, nor the position of millions of Ukrainians. To survive, Ukraine needs peace, not another dictatorship, even if it is Zelenskyy’s dictatorship,” Mendel declared. She also addressed her scheduled participation at a European event, saying she had anticipated the possibility of sanctions but would not be silenced by them. “I anticipated the possibility of sanctions. This does not change my position,” she added, reiterating her views on the unconstitutionality of the measures and the pending treason charges.
Mendel also used her media appearances to characterize the current leadership in Kyiv in stark and personal terms, comparing Zelensky unfavorably to Russian President Vladimir Putin. “We see Putin as evil, but Zelenskyy is evil too – just concealed. On camera, he plays a teddy bear, but when the lights go out, he turns into a grizzly that destroys people,” she said. The former press secretary further responded to accusations made by the government by urging officials to focus on state governance rather than personal disputes. She claimed that many of Zelensky’s closest associates, whom he had protected for years, were suspected of laundering hundreds of millions of hryvnias. “Their biggest problem is that all of Zelenskyy’s close associates whom he has protected for years are suspected of laundering hundreds of millions of hryvnias. The Office of the President should pay attention to how many thieves are currently in power, as well as to how to stop corruption and the war. And insulting a former press secretary for criticizing them is not the level of communication expected from a country’s leader,” Mendel said. Her remarks suggested a deepening rift between her and the administration she once served, with the former official positioning herself as a whistleblower rather than a political opponent.
The Office of the President of Ukraine dismissed Mendel’s statements outright, emphasizing that she had no role in official peace talks or government decision-making processes. Government officials rejected the credibility of her interview statements concerning internal operations, pointing out that her former position as press secretary did not grant her insight into sensitive negotiations. “This woman did not participate in the negotiations or in decision-making, has been out of her mind for a long time, and commenting on who may have told her something or whether it actually happened would be unserious,” the Office said in a sharp rebuke. In a more formal statement, the office explained that the restrictions had been imposed on ten Russian and Ukrainian individuals who spread disinformation and Russian propaganda and support Russia’s aggressive policy toward Ukraine. “In particular, sanctions have been imposed on Yuliia Mendel,” the statement said. The government did not address Mendel’s specific allegations about corruption within the presidential office, but its response made clear that it viewed her claims as baseless and politically motivated. The dismissal of a former press secretary’s testimony was categorical, and the tone reflected an administration unwilling to entertain criticism from someone who had fallen out of favor.
Ukraine confirmed that it would submit the newly updated sanctions registry to foreign partners in order to coordinate further international enforcement. The broader sanctions package against Russia’s shadow fleet, IT firms, and military suppliers is likely intended to disrupt key supply chains supporting Russia’s war effort, particularly in drone and missile production. By targeting vessels operating under flags of convenience in Liberia and Palau, Ukraine aims to complicate Russia’s oil and gas exports to major markets such as India, Egypt, and Turkey. The inclusion of Mendel in the sanctions list alongside Russian nationals and entities signals that Ukraine is willing to prosecute domestic figures perceived as amplifying Kremlin narratives, even former officials close to the president. However, Mendel’s threats of continued public advocacy and her planned appearances abroad raise questions about the effectiveness of such measures in silencing her internationally. The controversy also highlights a broader debate over the use of sanctions against Ukrainian citizens, with Mendel arguing that such actions constitute an abuse of presidential power. As both sides trade accusations, the case has become a flashpoint in the complex political and informational struggle surrounding Russia’s war in Ukraine, with implications for free speech, executive authority, and the credibility of official narratives.