Marianna Tretiak serves as Chair of the Board of Directors for the American Coalition for Ukraine (ACU), where she has emerged as a leading voice in mobilizing U.S. support for Ukraine. A longtime advocate for civic engagement, she was instrumental in founding the National Advocacy Committee of the Ukrainian National Women’s League of America—the oldest and largest Ukrainian women’s organization in North America—and continues to lead its nationwide advocacy efforts as chair.

Tretiak also played a foundational role in creating the ACU itself and has been a key organizer of the Ukraine Action Summit, including the landmark 2024 gathering that brought together more than 500 delegates from 44 states. Her commitment to Ukraine extends into the educational sphere, where she sits on the board of Ukraine Global Scholars and serves on the advisory board of Engin. A dedicated civic leader, she is also an active member of the Rotary Club of Philadelphia.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for joining me. My first question is, how did your leadership shape the outcomes of the Ukraine Action Summit in 2024?

Marianna Tretiak: The summit and the American Coalition for Ukraine itself result from the work of many individuals who have come together for a greater cause. So, I can’t take credit for all of our successes. But I think one thing that has been central since the beginning of the Ukraine Action Summit—since our first one in September 2022—is the focus on advocate education, as you mentioned. The more summits we hold, the more I realize how much this is not just a tool for getting co-sponsors on a bill but also for creating a lasting advocacy community—people who can take the work home with them to their districts and continue advocating year-round.

So, for the 2024 summit, our focus was twofold: First, ensuring that our advocates were prepared to continue their efforts regardless of election outcomes and ready to hit the ground running. Second, bringing in even more participants, aiming to include all 50 states. This summit was the first time we had constituents from all 50 states come to Washington, D.C., to advocate—and that achievement is largely due to the momentum built in prior summits and the engagement we fostered leading up to this one.

Jacobsen: What advocacy methods have been the most impactful or effective in advancing major aid efforts?

Tretiak: So, what we have found to be incredibly powerful is. First, we’ve made a big effort to find constituents—people who live in those districts—who can say, “I live in Iowa, I live in North Dakota, I live in Wyoming.” I don’t know why I’m just naming states in the Upper Midwest—but, you know, “I live in Florida, and I live in this district.” As your constituent, I know this is important to me as an American. What we’ve tried to do within the coalition is highlight the fact that 30 to 35 percent of the people who join us and advocate on the Hill do not have even a drop of Ukrainian blood. They’re just regular Americans doing it because they believe this matters as Americans.

For the passage of our supplemental aid package, we also made a major push to create alliances with our Ukrainian and American evangelical communities that have been sending missions to Ukraine since the 1990s. Ukraine is the cradle of Christianity in Eastern Europe. More churches have been founded in post-Soviet states by Ukrainians than by any other group of people.

We wanted to ensure that the message was carried through the halls of Congress. However, we can create a connection between our legislators and Ukraine—whether it is highlighting issues of faith, the faith they pray with at home, whether it is spotlighting the issue of stolen children—everyone has either been a child or has a child; or whether it is connecting legislators to constituents and the work they’ve been doing in Ukraine—these have all been among our most effective methods for building real connections and helping our legislators understand the truth of what is happening.

Jacobsen: With Donald Trump in the White House, many organizations are adapting their advocacy style depending on the particular conflict or political concern. How is ACU adapting to political changes unfolding in real time?

Tretiak: Well, we’ve been trying to do a few things and building them out. First, ahead of this summit, we created a video—the summit is so focused on education and training for advocates—so we put together a video in advance that was specifically about the changing advocacy landscape.

Many of our advocates did their work either in the 117th or the 118th Congress. The 117th Congress saw a flurry of bills being introduced all the time. The 118th had fewer, but still a significant number. Now, we’ve had to lay the groundwork and reeducate our advocates. We’re telling them this is a world where fewer new bills are being introduced. The number of new bills, compared to previous Congresses, is much lower. As a result, you can expect fewer bills about Ukraine—or perhaps none at all.

Many of us who’ve been involved in advocacy for some time understand that 2022 was unique. There were so many bills related explicitly to Ukraine, rather than Ukraine being mentioned as a line item in something like the National Defense Authorization Act. So, our first move was to educate our advocates about that shift in the legislative landscape.

So they know when they’re going in, not just to say, “Co-sponsor or nothing.” We’ve changed how we approach things. First, we want to ensure that we’re engaging our legislators so they can use their voices as platforms to share the truth.

Our work involves getting co-sponsors on bills for messaging impact and communicating that clearly to our advocates. We are also working hard to highlight that while we may not be perfectly in line with the administration, we’re at least singing from the same hymn book.

No one wants peace more than Ukraine. We are incredibly grateful for any actions aimed at bringing peace. Our conversation begins with the foundational truth that Ukrainians want peace more than anyone. Ukrainians want to live lives without being bombed. We are grateful and looking forward to any process that moves toward peace. From that point, we begin to have more complex conversations.

Jacobsen: How have appearances in Newsweek and broader media helped build awareness and support for Ukraine?

Tretiak: We’ve been fortunate. In 2022, there was a moment when the world woke up to Ukraine—and many issues that many of us had been aware of for years. I was born in the United States but grew up attending Ukrainian school every Saturday, and I was in the Ukrainian Scouts. There have been so many efforts, even to get The New York Times to stop writing “Kiev” instead of “Kyiv.” It took Russia’s 2022 invasion for them to change that, finally. I remember that in 2015, a huge sign-on letter from professors and international experts was sent to major newspapers asking them to recognize the correct Ukrainian spellings and narratives. And still, nothing. There was just this…I don’t know whether it was Russification or people being blind to it, but even the most basic things went ignored. Everyone’s attention is so fractured now, but 2022 was when it all converged on Ukraine.

So, anytime we can place a narrative in the media—even now—whether it’s a human-interest story about a stolen child or a survivor’s experience, it still makes a huge difference. After President Zelensky visited the U.S. in February and that somewhat infamous Oval Office moment, we started receiving emails to the general American Coalition inboxes from people we had never heard from before. They said, “I found you online. I’m American. I care about Ukraine. I want to help.”

That kind of outreach is invaluable. Especially now, with Ukraine fatigue setting in and American attention shifting to other things—which is natural—we truly value every opportunity to tell Ukraine’s story again and make it resonate.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by UNWLA (@unwlanational)

Jacobsen: What kind of grassroots mobilization is most needed to influence political decision-making and meet the current needs of Ukraine or Ukrainian Americans?

Tretiak: I think that, first and foremost, we are constantly working to bring in and connect with all Americans. In our coalition, in our state leader network, about 10 of our states are led by young Americans with no Ukrainian heritage. And in many ways, they are some of our most effective and impactful leaders.

So, if there’s one area where we always strive to engage, attract, and connect with people, it’s fostering relationships with Americans who want to support Ukraine. That is the grassroots engagement we are continually building. Any way we can do that—whether organizing an interfaith prayer service across multiple churches or hosting a cultural event or book discussion in a public library—we are focused on connecting at the grassroots level with our American supporters of Ukraine.

Jacobsen: The United States is becoming an increasingly secular society. By some measures, religious identification and affiliation have reached historic lows—a demographic shift that carries real implications for your advocacy efforts. Given this changing landscape, particularly the declining influence of traditional faith-based organizing, have you considered engaging with atheist, agnostic, or humanist communities as part of your outreach? Could there be space for an interfaith—or even ethical-humanist—framework that rallies diverse belief systems around shared principles such as Ukraine’s sovereignty, dignity, and survival in the face of war?

Tretiak: That’s an amazing idea. We’ve never ruled it out. We’ve done outreach along a variety of vectors. One of the reasons I often highlight churches is that, first, there are Ukrainian churches that many of us are connected with, and second, we’ve built strong relationships with the evangelical community more broadly.

That said, the coalition’s core is like America itself—it includes people of all faiths and people of no faith. We are deeply committed to that diversity and try to reflect it in our outreach strategy.

For example, we conducted an outreach trip to Louisiana last year, which helped us build strong connections. That is how we now have an amazing leader from Louisiana and such a vibrant delegation coming to our last three summits. Our outreach involved working with community organizations, visiting libraries, speaking at universities, and bringing in Ukrainian civilians to talk about their everyday lives and how the war has affected them.

So yes, we plan to continue reaching out through every vector we can. The main challenge at the moment is that we’re a volunteer-run organization. The availability of committed stakeholders and realistic funding support limits our capacity. But where we have people willing to lead, we make things happen.

Jacobsen: That’s a really important point. I raise it because I wouldn’t say I come directly out of the secular humanist tradition, but I’ve been actively involved with secular humanist and adjacent movements for some time. There’s a great deal of overlap—whether it’s the Unitarian Universalists, the ethical culture movement, humanistic Judaism, or others. It’s a broad and diverse constellation of communities, and I believe many within that orbit would be eager to engage more deeply.

In many ways, I think they’re waiting for an olive branch. We all recognize that this war is a profound tragedy. While much of the political discourse around religion and non-religion tends to be combative or binary, I try to avoid that framing. For most people, it simply comes down to how they choose to live their lives—how they practice, or don’t practice—in a personally authentic and private way.

Tretiak: Exactly.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by UNWLA (@unwlanational)

Jacobsen: What do you find to be the most emotionally taxing part of advocacy work—whether directly related to Ukraine or U.S.-Ukraine relations more broadly?

Tretiak: In my role within the coalition—as Chair of the State Leader Network—the most emotionally taxing part is working with and supporting our network of stakeholders. We have advocates in all 50 states, each led by delegation leaders.

These leaders act as the middle layer because I couldn’t possibly train and coordinate 600 advocates myself—not with the level of quality and support we aim to provide.

We rely on those leaders. But here’s the challenge: I can’t just replace them if I don’t get along with a particular leader. There’s often only one person coordinating advocacy in a specific region, and we must find ways to work together, for better or worse. That’s probably the most emotionally taxing aspect—finding a way to support and engage everyone.

These are personal connections we’re managing. We’re asking volunteers to give significant time and energy. Many run their own 501(c)(3) organizations to support Ukraine, and they do advocacy. So, it’s a constant balancing act—bringing patience, heart, and commitment to support people doing incredible work while managing my own bandwidth and, sometimes, herding cats.

Because they’re volunteers, we often take that final step for them. If someone does not complete a task, we put together everything they need so they can still execute it. If they’re calling their member of Congress or organizing a local rally, we ensure they have the talking points, background research, and any other materials they need.

So, it’s really about finding that balance—empowering them while respecting their limits and helping ensure their success in any way we can.

Jacobsen: What would be your biggest ask for 2025?

Tretiak: Is it realistic to ask or just pie in the sky?

Jacobsen: Yeah, I mean, pie in the sky is fine. We are not just stipulating universals that everyone wants. I’m more realistic at this point.

Tretiak: Absolutely. So, we certainly want one thing in particular: the Sanctioning Russia Act, which was introduced by Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick in the House and Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim Risch in the Senate. That is our major advocacy push right now.

As we move toward peace—and as more conversations begin around freezing the lines of conflict—we want to ensure that the U.S. follows historical precedent as it enters any peace process. We’re referencing the precedent set by the Welles Declaration when the U.S. refused to recognize the forced incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union.

So, we are asking that if the lines are frozen and we enter into a ceasefire or peace process involving currently occupied territories, the U.S. maintain a position of non-recognition—just as it has with Crimea. We cannot set a precedent that land can be taken by force and, if held long enough, become accepted. That is a dangerous message to send.

Jacobsen: That’s true.

Tretiak: Even if the situation results in frozen battle lines and occupied areas, the United States should not recognize those regions as part of the Russian Federation. That has been a key message in our meetings with legislators.

And there’s a third thing we’re advocating strongly for: Russia has stolen over 20,000 Ukrainian children whose names we know. Based on extrapolations from occupied territories, the estimated number is closer to 700,000 or 800,000.

How can we talk about peace, let alone a just peace, if these children remain abducted? If they are not returned, and we treat this as something we move past or ignore, then we fail. So, we are firmly advocating that any peace conversation must include accountability and action regarding the stolen children. The child protection and advocacy community is aligned on this point—we must prioritize their return.

Jacobsen: Thank you, Marianna.

Tretiak: Great! I’ll be in touch. Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today.