This is a partial transcript of our interview with Mike Gianakos, a fourth generation Greek American with Concerned Greek Orthodox Christian Citizens of New Jersey for the Rule of God’s Laws and Man’s Laws – an accountability organization which has filed a criminal complaint over the Beacon of Hope Award given to Zelensky on 9/26/2026. (A ceremony Zelensky seems to have declined to attend in person.) The full interview video and transcript will be available post-editing. This is an edited interview transcript. The views expressed are those of the interviewee. The criminal complaint discussed consists of allegations that have not been ruled upon by any court. Official statements from the St. Nicholas Shrine, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, the Archons, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate have framed the award as recognition of Zelensky’s leadership in defending Ukraine against Russian aggression.
Executive Summary
The central controversy is the September 26, 2026, Beacon of Hope Award presented by St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church and National Shrine (under the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America) to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Zelensky did not attend in person; Ukraine’s UN representative accepted the award on his behalf.
Critics, including many Orthodox Christians, argue that the honor is incompatible with documented restrictions on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). These include church raids, arrests and prosecutions of clergy, seizures of monasteries and property, legislation enabling the possible dissolution of UOC structures, and the revocation of Metropolitan Onufriy’s citizenship. United Nations human-rights experts have publicly warned that national-security claims cannot justify banning or dissolving a religious organization and have expressed concern about collective measures against the UOC.
Mike Gianakos, a fourth-generation Greek American and leader of Concerned Greek Orthodox Christian Citizens of New Jersey for the Rule of God’s Laws and Man’s Laws, traces the dispute to the 2014 change of government in Ukraine, subsequent U.S. diplomatic involvement (including figures such as Geoffrey Pyatt and Victoria Nuland), and the 2019 grant of autocephaly by the Ecumenical Patriarchate that created the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. He contends that U.S. policy has continued across administrations and that Orthodox institutions have failed to defend the canonical UOC.
His organization has filed a criminal complaint alleging religious persecution, fraud, coercion, racketeering, and related offenses against the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, certain U.S. officials, and Ukrainian authorities.
These remain allegations by the complainant and have not been adjudicated.
The interview calls for greater accountability from government officials, media, and Orthodox hierarchs, and urges laity to become more informed and active in parish governance. It presents the award as the latest episode in a longer conflict over religious freedom, foreign policy, and ecclesiastical authority.
Interview Transcript Highlights
Nicholas: Welcome, everyone. This is Nicholas from Orthodox Reflections. By the time you’re watching this, the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople and associated organizations within the United States—such as the Shrine of St. Nicholas, the Greek Archdiocese, and the Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate—will have already given a Beacon of Hope Award to Vladimir Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, who is unelected at this point.
The award has shocked many Orthodox and other Christians around the world because of the Zelensky government’s record on religious freedom and its reported persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. There is a great deal behind the decision and much happening in Ukraine and the United States that we need to discuss and bring to light.
Mike Gianakos has researched this topic for more than 10 years and is also taking legal action involving the Greek Archdiocese. He leads an organization of concerned Greek Orthodox Christians in New Jersey. Mike is joining us to explain how we reached this point, what surrounds the award, and how American policy in Ukraine relates to religious freedom. Mike, how are you?
Welcome, Michael. I’d like you to introduce yourself and your organization, and explain why you have been interested in this topic for the past 10 years.
Michael Gianakos: First, I’ll talk about our organization, the Concerned Greek Orthodox Christian Citizens of New Jersey for the Rule of God’s Laws and Man’s Laws. Our basic mission is to fill a gap in the reporting of our government’s foreign and domestic actions. That gap exists in the way major media report those actions.
In my view, [many of] these actions represent war crimes and crimes against humanity under the UN Charter and findings of the Human Rights Commission. Yet I believe this context is not adequately available to the public. Our mission is to oversee New Jersey politicians and members of Congress. Because I am from New Jersey, that is where we began: holding them accountable.
Their actions often mirror those of the federal government. They approve legislation and military actions, although Congress has circumvented Americans’ right to a congressional vote authorizing acts of war for roughly 25 years. That is also on us because we did not follow up. We evaluate each policy and action through legal research and publicly available information, including domestic and international news reports. We assess that information to determine the legality and consequences of the conduct.
We also issue criminal complaints against our congressman when policies that harm civilians are illegal and cause great harm in the United States and around the world. We file with the Attorney General of New Jersey and already have five complaints against our particular congressman because he is in our jurisdiction. Rather than work through a federal bureaucracy, we can make our case locally, where officials are obligated to answer us. That is our approach.
As for how I became interested in this particular case, the problem was already apparent 10 years ago. Before discussing the current dinner honoring Zelensky, I want to explain how the situation began and how we arrived here.
What caught our attention was that these actions [in Ukraine] were being committed and almost no one was speaking about them, apart from people such as Tucker Carlson, who was on Fox News at the time. He emphasized that churches were being banned, priests were being arrested, and people were being tortured, harassed, and terrorized.
Donald Trump Jr. also addressed the issue on social media. He wrote: “Zelensky is banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. His government has also been raiding Ukrainian Orthodox churches and arresting priests. Probably why he’s a Democratic superstar. He’s all about freedom, guys. Let’s send him another hundred billion dollars with no accountability.”
That statement was posted on December 2, 2022. It indicated that Donald Trump Jr. believed the Biden administration knew these abuses were occurring while continuing to glorify Zelensky as a hero and champion of freedom. That contradiction drew the attention of the Concerned Greek Orthodox Christian Citizens of New Jersey for the Rule of Law.
We could not understand how the government could provide billions of dollars to a leader accused of violating domestic law, international law, the UN Charter, and religious freedom. At that point, the allegations involved arrests, harassment, and violence against priests and clergy. We questioned why no one was stopping it and why funding continued in the name of human rights and freedom while those rights were allegedly being violated. That is how we became involved.
We began issuing petitions and complaints in 2022. I submitted a petition to my congressman calling for an end to the funding and the alleged abuses.
I asked how the United States could justify waging war against Russia for supposedly violating freedom and sovereignty while allowing what I understood to be the largest Orthodox Church in Ukraine—representing much of the country’s Orthodox population—to be targeted. The remaining population is primarily Catholic, with a smaller Jewish community. That was the beginning of our involvement and the approach we took.
Nicholas: Mike, just to reiterate: this really came to your attention in 2022.
Michael Gianakos: Right.
Nicholas: This occurred during the Biden administration. Donald Trump Jr. was not the only person speaking about it. Tulsi Gabbard, who was a Democrat at the time, opposed the reported religious persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. J.D. Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy also spoke about it.
I want to reiterate for the audience that this is not simply a partisan issue. When Republicans were out of power, they used the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as a political argument against the Biden administration. Those statements helped draw your attention to the issue. Now that Republicans are in power, Zelensky is again presented as a champion of human rights entitled to full U.S. support, while concern for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has largely disappeared.
Michael Gianakos: That’s right.
Nicholas: Concern has disappeared from view even as priests are reportedly seized from the streets and forcibly mobilized, a monk has been killed, and additional property has been seized. Donald Trump Jr. no longer appears concerned. But you and your organization remain focused on holding the American government accountable to its own principles. You are treating this not as a partisan issue, but as an issue of truth and justice. Is that correct?
Michael Gianakos: Absolutely. What you are describing is political opportunism. The parties battle each other for votes, and Donald Trump Jr.’s statement served as a political attack on the Democratic Party.
At the same time, it established that political leaders were aware of the reported violations and that the government continued providing substantial funding despite that knowledge. This undermines the foreign-policy claim that every action is humanitarian and intended to save freedom and human rights. The contradiction is that civilians are harmed in the name of saving them.
His statement therefore had value: it showed awareness of the allegations and of the funding connected to them. That made the issue a serious political problem for the Democratic Party at the time. I hope that answers the question.
Nicholas: It does. Thanks, Mike. You became interested in this topic in 2022, but you also have a long history of trying to hold the United States government accountable to the Constitution, our cultural norms, and our laws.
Michael Gianakos: That includes international law, the UN Charter, the Nuremberg principles, and RICO provisions addressing racketeering and corrupt organizations. Many of the actions we examine may implicate those laws.
Nicholas: I do want to hear about the criminal complaints your organization has filed or plans to file. First, though, let’s take a step back and discuss how this situation developed.
We have mentioned the Greek Archdiocese in the United States, which is ecclesiastically subordinate to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Take us back to the beginning. Before 2018, there was the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, along with several small schismatic bodies that claimed to be Orthodox but were not recognized, including by Constantinople.
Starting around 2014 and continuing through Poroshenko’s campaign, how did we reach the point where the Patriarchate of Constantinople recognized what became the Orthodox Church of Ukraine? How did that process continue through the first Trump administration, including the involvement of Mike Pompeo and other officials?
Michael Gianakos: I am prepared to address that. First, I want to explain what renewed my interest in the issue.
I could not understand honoring the leader of a country accused of using religion to advance a political agenda and of acting against Orthodox Christians. The allegations included banning churches that represented a large portion of Ukraine’s Orthodox population. How could an Orthodox institution set aside a day, hold a fundraiser, and honor that leader? To me, it was extraordinary, particularly because many Orthodox Christians and churches did not support Zelensky’s actions.
As you said, the situation was shocking. The decision seemed so brazen that we believed there had to be more behind it. Why would church leaders expose themselves and their clergy to the international consequences of honoring a government accused of persecution and terrorism? I will now explain our conclusions. The explanation is lengthy, but after presenting it I will return to the historical sequence and show how the pieces fit together.
Zelensky, the head of state, accused of religious persecution, human rights violations, arrests, intimidation, terrorization of canonical Orthodox clergy. [Our leaders] have aligned themselves with a regime whose documented actions constitute religious persecution and acts of terror against Christian communities. In doing so, they have made themselves complicit. Complicit. state sponsors of terrorism against Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and all Christian denominations suffering under undeclared wars. Undeclared wars waged by the United States, Israel, the EU, and Ukraine. The United Nations High Commission for Human Rights has already issued formal warnings documenting ongoing persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Raids, interrogation, prosecution of clergy, and attempts to dissolve the Kiev Metropolis. UN experts stated that national security, and I want everybody to remember that, cannot justify banning a religious organization. Ukraine’s and the US State Department’s action violate international human rights laws. These findings make your honoring of Zelensky indefensible. Your celebration of Zelensky is not diplomacy. It is betrayal. Under his rule, churches have been raided, priests arrested, monasteries seized. And believers terrorize. Instead of defending the persecuted, you honor the persecutor.
All attendees… who will be members of Congress. State Department officials, AIPAC representatives, Ukrainian lobbyists, Orthodox hierarchs, diplomats, media executives, and Greek American legislators. will be added to the criminal complaint filed by the concerned Christian citizens of New Jersey for the rule of God’s and man’s laws. You’ll be named in forthcoming legal action for funding, aiding, abetting and sponsoring of terrorism. This whole dinner is sponsoring terrorism against Christian churches.
The State Department has ignored UN findings, and continues to discard human and religious rights violations against Orthodox Christians, not only in the Ukraine, but also in Gaza, Palestine, Jerusalem, Syria, Iraq, Cyprus, Serbia, demonstrating its complicity in enabling persecution and terrorism. And that is the point. The dinner by the Archdiocese makes no sense. None at all. None at all. It’s fraud. complicity in enabling persecution and terrorism. That’s what I want everyone to remember. And that’s what all this is all about.
The criminal complaint filed by the concerned Christian citizens of New Jersey marks only the beginning. God will not be satisfied with merely the exorcism of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and his trustees, but also the State Department, politicians of America ruling parties, media institutions, and international bodies that have enabled persecution, terrorism, and human rights violations. To understand why the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America honored Vladimir Zelensky, to understand why canonical churches were raided, why priests were arrested, why monasteries were seized, why the faithful were terrorized, why clergy died, why parishes were dissolved, why icons were desecrated, we must go back. Not to the [award] dinner. Not to the tomos. Not to 2022. We must go back to 2014, ’cause this is where the line was crossed.
In 2014, Ukraine’s elected government was removed. Protests became violent, violence became insurrection, and insurrection became regime change. At the center of that transformation stood Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, and Victoria Nuland, a senior State Department official. Their involvement is documented in diplomatic cables, public statements, and an intercepted call in which they discussed who should lead the Ukrainian government.
These conclusions are not based on classified information. Our organization relies on publicly available material from international journalists, news reports, diplomatic records, and other accessible sources. We do not need classified material; the relevant information has long been available in the public record.
An intercepted call occurred roughly two weeks before the change of government and included discussion of who should lead Ukraine. In my view, that was not commentary but political engineering. After the government fell, Pyatt appeared alongside the new leadership. The fuse had been lit.
Before the change of government, the State Department directed millions of dollars into programs in Ukraine promoting education, American values, and democratic governance. Those programs supported nongovernmental organizations, media networks, political organizing structures, and civil-society partners. Their stated purpose was democracy; in my assessment, the outcome was destabilization. I see this as the political foundation of what I call the religious-political criminal enterprise.
After the change of government, civil war broke out. Many Russian-speaking Orthodox Christians and other residents of eastern Ukraine did not accept the removal of the government. In my view, the transition bypassed parliamentary processes that could have resolved the dispute without violence. Separatist movements emerged in the Donbas and in areas including Crimea, which helped set the stage for the Ukrainian civil war. I will not examine that conflict in detail here; I want to continue the timeline and explain how it led to the present situation.
Shortly afterward, Geoffrey Pyatt was transferred from Ukraine to Greece, another Orthodox Christian country. Greece is a gateway to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Mount Athos, the Church of Greece, and much of the spiritual infrastructure of global Orthodoxy. In my view, an ambassador’s proper function is to maintain relations with the host government and address matters of mutual interest. Activity beyond that can become interference in a country’s internal affairs. I believe Pyatt crossed that line.
He met with [Greek] monastic communities, patriarchal networks, political officials, archbishops, patriarchs, clergy, and bishops, and promoted religious freedom and Ukrainian autocephaly. At a religious-diplomacy conference, Pyatt said that Russia used the Church and energy resources to foment instability, undermine democracy, and exert negative influence in Ukraine, Europe, and the wider world. According to an Orthodox Times report dated November 12, 2019, he argued that Moscow used religion as part of a hybrid-warfare strategy, manipulated energy resources for political concessions, and restricted sacred practices in countries that resisted its political line. He also said the United States was deeply concerned about religious-freedom abuses in Russian-occupied Crimea and supported Ukrainians’ right to worship as they wished. I interpret this as an official use of religious policy against Russian influence in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, intertwined with energy and geopolitical interests.
Related Articles:
Nicholas: Let’s check the timeline. Pyatt remained in office during the first Trump administration, correct?
Michael Gianakos: Correct. When Trump became president, many State Department officials remained in place, and the broader policy agenda continued.
Nicholas: The change of government occurred in 2014 under the Obama administration. Pyatt’s later work in Greece, including engagement with the Church of Greece and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, continued during the first Trump administration. So the personnel and administrations changed, but the policy continued.
Michael Gianakos: That is a significant point. People can assign blame to Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, but the policies, economic measures, and institutional mechanisms often continue across administrations.
The same two parties have dominated national policy for decades. A new president does not necessarily change the underlying structure or agenda.
[Patriarch] Bartholomew’s role also has to be considered alongside that of [Prime Minister of Greece] Kyriakos Mitsotakis. In my view, the Greek government is heavily constrained by its relationships with the European Union, NATO, the United States, and, more recently, Israel. I therefore question whether Mitsotakis knew about these activities [in Ukraine] and why his government did not challenge Pyatt’s involvement with religious institutions.
An ambassador should not organize meetings with religious bodies to advance policies that affect the religious rights of people in another country. I regard the failure to intervene as complicity.
The Orthodox Church in Greece is funded by the Greek government, creating institutional incentives to comply with government policy. I believe Pyatt pressured Patriarch Bartholomew to create a new Orthodox Church in Ukraine aligned with the post-2014 government and Western geopolitical interests. In my interpretation, this is where foreign policy became ecclesiastical restructuring.
To illustrate the extent of these efforts, I want to quote Helena Skopei, whom I understand to be an editor and reporter covering Mount Athos for a Greek social-media platform and journal. She wrote that 17 of the 20 monasteries on Mount Athos rejected Ukrainian autocephaly and that most refused to receive or recognize Ukrainian representatives.
She argued that Pyatt nevertheless continued promoting “religious freedom” and supporting Patriarch Bartholomew’s effort to advance those geopolitical aims. In her view, the monks would not accept that pressure.
She continued by asking why Pyatt and the State Department did not apply the same religious-freedom diplomacy to Saudi Arabia. She described Mount Athos as an enduring monument of faith with no place in geopolitical rivalries and criticized U.S. officials for claiming to defend Orthodoxy after the destruction of historic Orthodox churches in Syria and decades of inaction regarding the Halki Theological Seminary.
I regard that statement as evidence about the ambassador’s [Pyatt] activities in Greece and his effort to promote Bartholomew’s plan. Mount Athos holds exceptional importance in the Orthodox world, which makes this involvement especially significant.
The proposal asked Orthodox Christians in one ecclesiastical jurisdiction—historically connected to the Russian Orthodox Church—to recognize a newly structured body aligned with another jurisdiction. In practical terms, it resembled an outside authority entering an established Catholic diocese and directing its clergy and faithful to transfer their allegiance to a different hierarchy. That would be a major ecclesiastical intervention.
Nicholas: Let’s pause there. At the time, an election campaign was underway in Ukraine. Petro Poroshenko was running against Volodymyr Zelensky, who was then best known as a television comedian and was not widely expected to become president. Poroshenko’s campaign drew on a nationalist, “blood and soil” message associated with the Bandera legacy. He wanted a national Orthodox church that could strengthen his campaign.
Although the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was ecclesiastically connected to the Moscow Patriarchate, it had been self-governing for decades. Its primate, His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufriy, was Ukrainian, as was its synod. The church selected its own leadership, and Russian bishops did not vote on matters affecting Ukraine, even though Ukrainian bishops could participate in the Russian synod. Poroshenko nevertheless distrusted the church because its bishops were not political nationalists, and he wanted a church aligned with his government. The international activity you described—including Pyatt’s work with Mount Athos—supported that objective.
Before Poroshenko’s campaign, there was little pressure for Patriarch Bartholomew to intervene in Ukraine and resolve the existence of small, unrecognized schismatic groups. The proposed solution was to combine those groups into a new ecclesiastical body. Why would Patriarch Bartholomew do this in 2018 and 2019? What did he stand to gain? Was he pressured, offered an opportunity, or motivated by some other consideration? Why create a competing ecclesiastical body in a territory that had been Christian for more than a thousand years and already had a self-governing church?
Michael Gianakos: The most obvious possibilities are opportunity and power. Pyatt may have presented the arrangement as mutually beneficial: Western officials would manage the political work, while the new church would fall within Bartholomew’s jurisdiction. That would be a cynical calculation for an Orthodox patriarch. Another possibility is intimidation, threats, or blackmail. I cannot establish which explanation is correct, but the decision is difficult to understand otherwise.
The decision deepened the schism between Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox Church, which regarded the new body as schismatic. In my view, that division served a broader objective of isolating Russia. The unresolved civil war in the Donbas, allegations of abuses against separatist territories, and continued Western involvement all contributed to the escalation. I believe U.S. officials knew of allegations of war crimes by the Ukrainian government, which raises the question of why they continued supporting the policy.
One possibility is that Bartholomew was responding to the governing structures around him. Because Greece operates within NATO and the European Union and maintains a close relationship with the United States, I believe the Greek government may have approved or facilitated the policy. Mitsotakis’s possible role should therefore be examined as part of the broader NATO and Western framework. That is the best assessment I can offer.
Pyatt also argued that Russia used the Church to exert negative influence in Europe, Greece, and Ukraine. In my view, the implied objective was to replace that influence with Western influence. The Nord Stream pipeline is relevant to this broader issue because it provided Europe with affordable Russian energy for industry, home heating, and employment. It represented a long-term energy relationship between Germany and Russia that could have supplied Western Europe for decades.
During Donald Trump’s first administration, the United States imposed sanctions intended to impede completion of the pipeline. Germany objected, arguing that the pressure interfered with its sovereignty and economic interests. Trump said the pipeline would give Russia too much influence in Europe. I interpret the policy as an effort to sever Russia’s commercial, financial, and energy ties with Europe. The economic pressure therefore began well before the pipeline was damaged.
I regard broad economic sanctions as coercive because they pressure entire populations and governments to change policy. After Joe Biden took office, his administration waived certain sanctions related to Nord Stream 2 before later imposing additional measures. I cannot establish who damaged the pipeline. However, Biden had publicly said that if Russia invaded Ukraine, “there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2,” which many people later cited when discussing responsibility.
Countries such as China and India rely on trade with Russia for oil, gas, fertilizers, and other essential products. Threatening their access to the U.S. market pressures their leaders to deprive their own citizens of more affordable goods and to join Washington’s policy against Russia. That is the practical effect as I see it.
Our [criminal] complaint addresses this broader strategy, including restrictions on oil and gas trade and pressure to buy more expensive U.S. or Israeli energy. In my view, these measures raise costs for foreign countries and American consumers alike. Trade disputes with Canada, China, and other countries show how governments perceive this pressure. I believe the objective is to weaken Russia’s economy by reducing its civilian revenue and forcing political concessions. That is why I describe the package as coercive and potentially subject to racketeering analysis.
This is why I reject the claim that Russia alone used religion and energy to undermine European democracies. European industry had benefited from affordable Russian energy. After those ties were disrupted, Germany faced serious economic pressure, and Hungary sought exemptions from sanctions because of the impact on its economy. In my view, political leaders and major media outlets have not adequately explained those consequences.
Syria [also] illustrates why I object to broad sanctions. While the United States said it was fighting ISIS, sanctions on the Assad government restricted oil and gas revenue and reduced the government’s capacity to provide public services and support its military. Those measures affected civilians, including Orthodox Christians. The consequences are more serious than many people realize, and our organization’s role is to bring them to public attention.
That is the purpose of the Concerned Greek Orthodox Christian Citizens of New Jersey for the Rule of God’s Laws and Man’s Laws. We see ourselves as an oversight organization not only for Orthodox Christians, but for Christians more broadly. In our view, the Orthodox Church has a responsibility to help defend Christian communities and preserve the faith’s historic witness.
Nicholas: Thank you for that, Mike, and for the work your organization is doing. Let’s continue with the timeline.
Michael Gianakos: I will continue with what I see as the next stage. Based on the public statements and activities already discussed, I believe U.S. diplomacy in Greece promoted hostility toward Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church. The next step was the 2019 tomos ceremony in Istanbul, which I regard as a political investment as well as an ecclesiastical act. The Ecumenical Patriarch signed the tomos recognizing the newly established Orthodox Church of Ukraine. President Petro Poroshenko attended, as did Geoffrey Pyatt, whom I view as an architect of the post-2014 political restructuring and the policy linking church affairs with energy and geopolitical interests. In my assessment, the ceremony placed ecclesiastical authority in service of a political agenda and became another component of what I call the religious-political enterprise.
I believe current events are revealing the seriousness of the situation. Continued escalation could have catastrophic consequences, including nuclear conflict. My point is that public awareness must lead to action before patience is exhausted and the damage becomes irreversible.
Nicholas: Mike, I’d like to bring this back to the Greek Archdiocese in the United States. The Shrine of St. Nicholas is governed by a Board of Trustees whose president is Archbishop Elpidophoros, who reports directly to Patriarch Bartholomew.
The Greek Archdiocese is the largest Orthodox jurisdiction in the United States and an important source of support for the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Only a few thousand Orthodox Christians may remain in Turkey, so the patriarch depends heavily on the Greek Archdiocese—particularly the Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate—for financial and institutional support.
Many Greek Americans have deep roots in the United States. You are, I believe, a third-generation American.
Michael Gianakos: Fourth.
Nicholas: Fourth generation, then. Greek Americans may retain their heritage and Orthodox faith while being deeply rooted in the United States; many are first-, second-, third-, or fourth-generation Americans, and some do not speak Greek. The Greek Archdiocese remains a key source of financial and demographic support for the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Everything you have described is publicly available rather than secret. Why, then, has there been so little visible response from the laity?
Michael Gianakos: It is all public. We do not rely on secret information because we do not need it. Journalists and other public sources have documented the relevant events. The evidence is available, which raises the question of why so little has happened in response.
Nicholas: That is my question. An average parishioner in a Greek Archdiocese parish could find this information. Why is there no groundswell of support for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church?
Why can Archbishop Elpidophoros and Patriarch Bartholomew appear with Zelensky and hold a dinner honoring him without a substantial response from the rank-and-file laity—the people who pay, pray, and obey? What is happening within the Greek Archdiocese that keeps parishioners on the sidelines?
Michael Gianakos: I believe the main reason is that the information is not widely reported. The same question applies to evangelical Protestants and other Christians in America.
When the invasion began, some priests described it in church as an unprovoked attack, repeating the accounts they had heard, but they did not explain the allegations involving the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to parishioners or parish boards. Major U.S. news outlets gave the issue little attention; Tucker Carlson was among the few prominent media figures who addressed it directly. Without sustained reporting or discussion within parishes, most people did not know what was happening.
In 2022, I drafted a petition and took it to my parish. I asked parish leaders to sign it and send it to our congressman, whose district includes both the church and my home. I had already spoken with him by phone, explained the allegations, and argued that U.S. funding should stop because the policy contradicted the constitutional principles the country claims to defend. The petition set out the case and was intended for presentation to the parish board.
The proposal encountered significant resistance. Some people feared repercussions from the Archdiocese and believed certain actions required approval. Although there was initial willingness to proceed, the matter was tabled before I could present the case.
That experience convinced me that parishioners need to request time at their General Assemblies to discuss these issues directly. In my view, the combination of limited information and institutional caution leaves most parishioners unaware of what is happening.
That lack of awareness extends beyond Orthodox parishes. Many Americans do not understand the legal basis of foreign conflicts or the consequences of government action. They assume Congress and the Justice Department will address misconduct, but our organization believes oversight often fails.
Our approach is to present evidence directly to lawmakers and, when we believe legal violations have occurred, to file complaints with the Attorney General. In our view, officials who receive credible allegations and fail to investigate may enable the conduct to continue.
The public, including many Greek Orthodox parishioners, may not recognize the conduct as potentially unlawful. People rely on elected officials and enforcement agencies, but if those institutions fail, citizens naturally ask what lawful recourse remains. That is the accountability problem we are trying to address.
The Republican and Democratic parties are private political organizations rather than government agencies. Citizens can lawfully challenge their dominance by withholding support, voting for alternatives, protesting, and seeking legal review where appropriate.
In my view, meaningful information from elected officials is often difficult to obtain, which makes independent civic oversight essential. That is my best answer.
Nicholas: I appreciate that. Power without accountability can lead to tyranny, and that is what we are seeing.
Michael Gianakos: That’s right. I see it as an abuse of power.
Nicholas: The same problem can arise within the Church. OrthodoxReflections.com began during COVID because bishops were making decisions that affected the practice and public witness of the Orthodox faith in the United States while expecting the faithful simply to comply. That approach lacked accountability.
In the Orthodox model, bishops and laity have responsibilities to one another, and everyone is accountable to Jesus Christ. We have also seen efforts to elevate the Patriarch of Constantinople beyond a primacy of honor. Mount Athos is our holiest site, yet the patriarch is increasingly presented not as first among equals, but as first without equal. In my view, that reinforces a top-down model in which ordinary believers are expected to remain silent.
I appreciate that your organization is drawing attention to these issues and pursuing action through the legal system. Elections alone may not solve the problem when new officeholders continue the same policies.
Michael Gianakos: It becomes a vicious cycle. In recent elections, many voters have felt limited to choosing the lesser of two evils. In my view, the pattern continues because voters are not fully informed about policy continuity across administrations.
I no longer vote for either major party and may support an independent candidate instead. I see that choice as a form of protest against a two-party system that uses campaign resources and institutional advantages to limit competition. Commentators such as Tucker Carlson have described this arrangement as a “uniparty,” and I believe it raises concerns about political monopoly.
I do not have an easy solution. We need statesmanship, but I see very little of it in Congress. In my view, much of the media has divided into partisan camps that fight domestically while often supporting the same international objectives. That makes genuine accountability even more difficult.
It comes down to the dominant population in America. About 49 percent identify as evangelical Protestants. They have long had substantial influence over the House, Senate, and presidency, and therefore bear responsibility for the officials they elect or appoint. Many do not realize that their tax dollars fund what I consider two criminal enterprises—the United States and Israel—making them first in money and power, but also, unfortunately, implicated in mass killing. The evidence is visible. When a president says he will destroy Iran, a country of roughly 80 million people, what do you call that? We have reached a stage of depravity in which people have become insensitive to illegal actions, while the media does not report their consequences.
I would like to go a little further, if that is okay.
Nicholas: Yeah, sure. Go ahead.
Michael Gianakos: Okay, so now I want to bridge the enterprise—the religious-political enterprise. Mike Huckabee is a former Baptist minister, former Arkansas governor, and currently the U.S. Ambassador to Israel. He is controversial because of statements he has made, including in interviews with Tucker Carlson, who strongly challenged him. Huckabee was essentially telling the American people that they are obligated to support Israel’s actions, including conduct that critics describe as genocide and war crimes. To understand this, and the alliance in which religion is used, is central to our complaint. Using religion as a tool of war is despicable. What kind of people do that? It is one of the oldest and most reprehensible actions by governments.
Mike Huckabee stated, “I couldn’t understand why anyone who takes on the moniker of Christian would not also be a Zionist.” This was directed at Orthodox and Catholic patriarchs and other Christian leaders in the Holy Land. He continued: “Personally, I’m part of a global and growing evangelical Protestant tradition that believes the authority of Scripture and the faithfulness of God in keeping His covenants. That includes His covenants with Abraham and the Jewish people.” He said his Christian faith is built on the foundation of Judaism and that without it one cannot call oneself a Christian. My interpretation is that the statement presents Zionism as mandatory for Christian identity, excluding Orthodox and Catholic Christians who reject political Zionism as doctrine. That is the theological foundation of a political enterprise.
Let me translate that again. He is essentially saying that he does not consider Orthodox and Catholic Christians to be Christians unless they follow this political doctrine. He argues that Christians are obligated to support Israel, a position also associated with figures such as Ted Cruz. In my view, this demand is used to justify U.S. funding and military involvement in conflicts involving Iran, Syria, Gaza, and elsewhere. He is talking about support for a regime whose leaders have faced allegations before the International Criminal Court. This is why I describe it as a religious enterprise. I repeat: the statement asserts that Zionism is mandatory for Christian identity, excluding Orthodox and Catholic Christians who reject it.
To show the religious conflict here, the Orthodox and Catholic patriarchs of Jerusalem replied that Christian Zionism distorts the Gospel, replaces Christ’s teachings with political ideology, endangers Christians in the Holy Land, and is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity. That response is rarely reported in the news, even though criticism of Christian Zionism is now a matter of public record.
Nicholas: Let’s drill in on something right there, Mike, and bring it back not only to Ukraine, but also to Estonia, where a very similar situation is occurring. A government we support and are allied with through NATO is persecuting its own Estonian Orthodox Church.
The United States appoints ambassadors who are Christian Zionists and who appear to value Israel and the Israeli agenda over the country they are supposed to represent. At the same time, the United States government—which should be constrained by our First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom—is actively supporting Christian persecution and financing foreign governments that interfere in Christian governance. In Ukraine and Estonia, those governments are effectively saying that churches must be run according to state dictates. That is a complete violation of the fundamental American values enshrined in the Constitution, which our elected representatives swear to defend and uphold.
One problem I have with many American Orthodox Christians is that they understand we are backing this abroad, but somehow believe the First Amendment will continue to protect them here. Orthodoxy is incompatible with political Zionism. The Church is Israel; that teaching has been handed down from Jesus Christ through the Apostles to us today. The political entity established in 1948 in the Holy Land, previously referred to as Palestine, is not the Israel of God; the Orthodox Church is.
That is deeply inconvenient for important people and government policy, especially as Orthodoxy grows in influence within American culture. When the Church of Jesus Christ tells Christian Zionists such as Huckabee or Pete Hegseth that they are following a political ideology rather than Christian belief, it challenges powerful interests.
Turning a blind eye to Christians persecuted in Ukraine, Estonia, or elsewhere around the world with support from our government—while assuming that the same danger will never reach us—is extraordinarily shortsighted. We cannot assume that a U.S. government willing to claim authority over the lives of millions abroad will automatically leave Orthodox jurisdictions untouched at home. Our theology and dogma prevent us from joining that political bandwagon. Given the political interference in the Patriarchate of Constantinople and in church politics more broadly, it seems to me that we are harming ourselves by ignoring this.
Michael Gianakos: Not to interrupt you, but I want to return to Huckabee’s statement because it is significant to me. He said, “I am part of a global and growing evangelical Protestant tradition.” My interpretation is that he is describing a broad political-religious constituency.
He connects that tradition to Zionism and suggests that evangelical officials in the United States and Europe share this outlook. I am not saying the connection is certain, but it can be perceived as a religious qualifier behind policy toward Russia, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East.
Estonia brings us back to Pyatt’s plan. The claim was not limited to Ukraine; it implied that Russia controlled Orthodox churches throughout the region. In my view, that was inflammatory and false.
Pyatt later remained involved in the State Department and energy policy, which raises questions about how economic sanctions and tariffs were used to restrict purchases of Russian, Iranian, or Syrian oil. That is why I returned to Huckabee’s remarks: the issue is not only one official, but a broader political and religious network.
It is not only Huckabee. Another prominent evangelical leader is John Hagee. He has publicly stated that biblical teaching requires support for Israel. To paraphrase, he frames the issue not as a political dispute about Palestine or Israel, but as a biblical issue, and argues that Israel has a right to the land. He also speaks about Israel’s future role after Armageddon. I am including this to illustrate the religious reasoning being used.
Pyatt and other ambassadors act as messengers for this outlook. They justify policy through Christian language and present themselves as defending the world, including through actions taken in the name of protecting Israel. In my view, that use of religion damages Protestant Christianity and Christianity more broadly.
Ordinary Protestants and Jewish people should not be blamed for the actions of a small group of political and religious leaders.
[In Ukraine] The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights documented raids on monasteries, interrogations and prosecutions of clergy, and attempts to dissolve the Kyiv Metropolis. UN experts stated that national security cannot justify banning a religious organization. That warning is central to my argument.
Governments repeatedly invoke national security to justify intervention. In my view, Pyatt’s message combined religious freedom, humanitarian language, and security claims to support involvement in foreign conflicts. When military action proceeds without a declaration of war, I regard it as unlawful and as an act of terrorism carried out without the people’s consent.
The Republican and Democratic parties have pursued these policies without direct public consent. If Congress openly debated and voted on economic, political, and military warfare against Russia, I do not believe the public would support it. In my view, officials avoid that accountability because voters could remove them from office.
No one should begin a war over Ukraine that could escalate against Russia, a major nuclear power, and put millions of American lives at risk. Who would accept that sacrifice, and for what purpose? The escalation should never have begun.
In my view, proceeding [with Ukrainian policies] despite all of that made no sense unless church leaders were under pressure, subject to coercion, or exercising extraordinarily poor judgment. Honoring a government accused of persecuting Christians could have serious consequences for Christianity worldwide, including for Greek Orthodox clergy in America and abroad.
Our[criminal] complaint outlines what we believe are the consequences for the Church and the faithful. It speaks for clergy and believers who, according to the allegations, were beaten or threatened; for displaced nuns; for emptied monasteries; for desecrated icons; for violated altars; for dissolved parishes; and for scattered faithful and destroyed churches.
I believe the human cost of this honor is that it signals to governments that they may fabricate allegations against a Christian church, raid its property, arrest its clergy, dissolve its parishes, and seize its monasteries while still receiving recognition from church leaders. In my view, that creates a dangerous precedent for Christian institutions elsewhere.
The Department of Justice had contacted Orthodox churches and asked them to watch for possible infiltration by Russian Orthodox operatives. In my view, this resembled the approach taken in Ukraine because it placed clergy and parish communities under suspicion.
I interpret that outreach as intimidation. Priests could be led to fear that parishioners who challenge prevailing narratives or defend the Russian Orthodox Church might be treated as accessories to foreign spying. Applied to someone presenting a dissenting view at a parish General Assembly, that suspicion could discourage legitimate discussion and silence commentary. In my view, the same method used to accuse clergy in Ukraine of disloyalty had reached Orthodox communities in the United States.
To summarize what I consider the strongest evidence: the tomos was signed, Mount Athos rejected the new church structure, and UN experts documented alleged persecution and stated that national security cannot justify banning a church. A mainstream Christian publication also reported systematic state action presented as “spiritual independence.”
Zelensky said that Ukraine would ensure “complete independence, spiritual independence” and would never allow anyone “to build an empire inside the Ukrainian soul.” I view that as ideological rather than administrative language. In my interpretation, it describes a state project to control religious identity, eliminate the canonical Orthodox Church, and replace it with a politically engineered structure.
The other recurring elements [from the Ukrainian government] are church policy, energy interests, and religious-freedom diplomacy. The criticism raised earlier was that U.S. officials promoted religious freedom where geopolitical advantages existed but did not apply the same pressure to Saudi Arabia. In my view, that shows religious freedom being used not as a consistent principle, but as a policy tool.
The next element is what I call media shielding. In my view, major U.S. and Greek outlets echoed European Union and NATO messaging, protected officials such as Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt from scrutiny, and gave insufficient attention to reported religious persecution. I characterize that as coordinated narrative management.
Donald Trump Jr.’s statement that Zelensky was banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, raiding churches, and arresting priests showed that political figures were aware of the allegations. In my view, continued U.S. funding despite that awareness is a serious indictment of government policy.
Tucker Carlson raised the issue with Mike Pence in a town-hall discussion. Pence responded that he had spoken with Zelensky and had been told that no persecution was occurring. Carlson challenged that answer and questioned how a Christian could accept the imprisonment of priests because of their views. I understood the exchange as a sharp moral criticism of officials who dismissed the reported abuses.
I want to close by explaining what our organization believes the alleged conduct means and why we think it warrants formal review. In my view, accountability should not depend solely on the Department of Justice; Orthodox institutions and the faithful could also examine the complaint through an appropriate ecclesiastical process.
I envision a tribunal or comparable review in which the evidence would be considered and the accused parties would be allowed to respond. If wrongdoing were established, I believe the consequences should extend beyond an admonishment because the alleged conduct affects the Church, its faithful, and its public credibility.
In my opinion, leaders found responsible should be removed from positions of authority, and the Church should make clear that their actions do not represent Orthodox teaching or the faithful. Such a response would reject those actions as unworthy, begin restoring trust, and encourage other institutions to examine their own conduct.
Our complaint presents serious allegations against the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, the State Department, and the Zelensky government. Our organization believes the evidence supports these claims, but they remain allegations, not judicial findings.
Regarding the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, the complaint alleges that its leaders provided religious and public-relations support for political actors accused of suppressing religious institutions in Ukraine. It further alleges fraud or misrepresentation because Zelensky was presented as a defender of freedom without adequate disclosure of reported church raids, clergy arrests, property seizures, and warnings from international human-rights bodies.
The complaint also characterizes the Archdiocese’s conduct as an abuse of religious authority and interference in the internal affairs of a foreign church. Again, these are the complainant’s allegations and would require evaluation by the appropriate authorities.
I will now summarize our organization’s allegations against the U.S. State Department. We contend that State Department officials used religious-freedom policy as a geopolitical tool to influence the structure of Orthodoxy in Ukraine.
The complaint alleges interference in the internal religious affairs of Greece and Ukraine, pressure on the Ecumenical Patriarchate and other religious institutions, and the use of diplomatic leverage to promote political outcomes. It further alleges that these actions contributed to political and religious destabilization and enabled reported raids, arrests, and the suppression of clergy. These are allegations presented by our organization, not judicial findings.
The difficulty, Nicholas, is that many Christians—Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant—find it hard to believe that public officials could engage in the level of misconduct alleged in the complaint.
When confronted with claims of religious persecution or war crimes, many people assume the accusations must be exaggerated because they cannot imagine leaders behaving that way. In my view, that disbelief makes public accountability more difficult.
Rather than read every item individually, I will summarize the complaint. It alleges religious persecution, crimes against peace, war crimes, fraud and deception, coercion, extortion, seizure of church property, intimidation, psychological pressure, interference in internal religious affairs, racketeering, conspiracy, misuse of public office, obstruction of justice, and violations of international human-rights law.
It also alleges coordinated action across governmental, diplomatic, religious, and media institutions to achieve political and financial objectives. Again, these are the complainant’s legal characterizations and would need to be evaluated by the proper authorities.
The complaint also alleges fraud against the faithful. It argues that church leaders presented themselves as speaking for Greek Orthodoxy when honoring Zelensky and portrayed him as a symbol of hope and freedom despite substantial opposition among Orthodox Christians to his government’s actions. Our organization views that portrayal as misleading. I could continue, but I would like to conclude by explaining what this moment means to us.
The night the silence broke. Tonight, we have walked through evidence, testimony, raids, pressure, competing narratives, and the quiet corridors where power moves unseen. We have examined the places where the Church was bent and those where it refused to bend.
Now we stand at the threshold of truth. What happened in Ukraine, Greece, the halls of diplomacy, and the sanctuaries of the Church is not merely a story of politics, geopolitics, or diplomacy. It is a story of faith under pressure, power without accountability, silence where there should have been protection, and betrayal where there should have been courage.
The ordinary, quiet, unseen faithful were left to carry the weight. They watched monasteries raided, clergy arrested, and the canonical Church pushed toward dissolution. They watched the narrative shift from freedom to security, from security to spiritual independence, and from spiritual independence to ideological control.
They watched the world applaud a man whose government, they believed, was suppressing their Church. They watched their own Archdiocese honor him and their own leaders stand beside him. And they asked a question that echoes through every century of Christian history: Where was the Church when the Church was under attack?
Tonight, we have presented the charges as alleged by the complainant. We have identified the statutes and laws invoked when institutions fail and traced the connections from Istanbul to Kyiv, from Washington to Athens, and from Mount Athos to every parish that felt the strain.
But this moment is not ultimately about law, politics, or governments. It is about the faithful—the people who light candles in the dark, pray when the world forgets them, and carry the Church when the Church forgets itself.
This episode ends with a truth that cannot be legislated, suppressed, raided, or dissolved: the Church belongs to Christ, not to governments, diplomats, political narratives, awards, or ceremonies. The faithful respond through prayer, witness, truth, courage, and testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to address this.
Nicholas: Mike, thank you very much. We appreciate your time. Please look for more links in the comments, and we’ll invite you back to discuss what happened at the September 26 event. Have a great day.
Michael Gianakos: Thank you, Nicholas. It was an honor to be interviewed and participate in this presentation. I appreciate the work of Orthodox Reflections and its attention to an issue that, in my view, affects the wider Christian community, not only Orthodox Christians. These matters needed to be brought to light.
I hope everyone attending the event [planned protest in NYC that got rained out] remains safe despite the expected storm. God bless them, and thank you again.
Nicholas: Thank you, Mike. This was excellent. Have a great weekend, and good luck tomorrow. Goodbye.
