Mr. Nawrocki’s SAFE veto: Political Rubicon for Poland’s right

President Karol Nawrocki has announced that he will not sign the law enabling Poland to receive funding from the EU’s SAFE instrument. On Friday, Prime Minister Donald Tusk responded to the move. He said the government would proceed with the “Polska Zbrojna” (“Armed Poland”) program regardless, and that funding for the military would still flow.

However, officers of the police and the Border Guard have reasons to be disappointed – they will not be able to count on EU support. The president’s decision may also carry costly long-term political consequences, not only for him personally but for the broader right-wing camp.

President Nawrocki announced that he would refuse to sign the bill approving EU support from the SAFE instrument. In response, the government convened an extraordinary meeting on Friday and adopted a resolution allowing spending to begin without the law.

“We were prepared for this possibility,” Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, said on Friday.

In response to the presidential veto, Mr. Tusk announced that EU funds for armaments would flow anyway. But not everyone who had expected support will receive it.

The first to lose out will be the police and the Border Guard. The bill had provided for a major funding boost for both services, which report to the Ministry of the Interior and Administration. The money was meant to finance equipment modernization, and the State Protection Service (SOP) – the agency responsible for protecting VIPs – also stood to gain.

Police and Border Guard left without a major equipment boost

More than PLN 7 billion (about EUR 1.6 billion) had been earmarked for the police, the Border Guard and the State Protection Service. The plan allocated PLN 3 billion (around EUR 700 million) each to the police and the Border Guard, and roughly PLN 700 million (about EUR 160 million) to the State Protection Service (SOP), primarily for equipment modernization.

Under the proposal, the police and the Border Guard were to receive additional multirole helicopters and armored vehicles. The latter were intended to strengthen border protection and patrol operations. Both services were also to be equipped with drones of various types and classes, as well as counter-drone systems. These capabilities are currently in high demand for both the Border Guard and the police, supporting reconnaissance missions, patrol operations and threat detection.

The police and the Border Guard were also due to receive specific types of weaponry. This included assault rifles, precision (sniper) rifles and automatic grenade launchers, along with large quantities of ammunition, ballistic inserts for bulletproof vests, new helmets, optoelectronic equipment such as night-vision and thermal-imaging devices, and modern communications systems.

The equipment could have been supplied either by companies from the Polska Grupa Zbrojeniowa (PGZ) or by private-sector firms. This includes companies that do not manufacture weapons directly but provide highly advanced technologies with potential dual-use applications – technologies that are primarily civilian in nature but can also serve the military or security services.

Less funding for infrastructure as well

PLN 9 billion (about EUR 2.1 billion) had been earmarked for the Ministry of Infrastructure. The intention was to channel these funds into military mobility – building and expanding roads and transport corridors capable of supporting military logistics. This is a crucial component of infrastructure security.

New roads are needed in particular to facilitate the potential movement of allied troops. In the event of a real armed conflict, a large share of heavy allied equipment would likely reach Poland by sea. Yet northern Poland remains only moderately well connected by road with the rest of the country. This is why SAFE funding was supposed to support the expansion of the national road network through the infrastructure ministry.

The Ministry of Digital Affairs had also been counting on funding. Speaking in parliament on Friday, Krzysztof Gawkowski mentioned PLN 7 billion (about EUR 1.6 billion). Strengthening capabilities in cyberspace is also a key defense priority, as Poland is among the most frequently targeted countries in Europe by cyberattacks.

Building domestic capabilities in this area, however, is costly. Cloud infrastructure and the development of artificial intelligence are modern solutions – and expensive ones. The same applies to systems being developed by the Cyber Defense Forces Component Command, including battlefield management platforms and secure encrypted communications for soldiers.

What next? SAFE will go through – pushed through by other means

One way or another, Poland will draw on EU funds, and the money will reach the armed forces. But it will take a more circuitous route and be accounted for differently, as the funds will instead be channeled into the Armed Forces Support Fund. This was confirmed before the cabinet meeting by Deputy Prime Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz.

The financial terms, however, will be less favorable than if the funds had been managed through the new body envisaged by the bill. The amount ultimately reaching Poland will likely be significantly smaller. Poland will also have to pay back more.

There is also a third option: the government could consider the president’s proposal known as “SAFE 0 percent.” Yet given the current intensity of the political dispute, this scenario appears unlikely. Donald Tusk and Karol Nawrocki have clearly entered into open confrontation. Time will tell which of Poland’s two most powerful politicians has more ammunition in this political battle.

The political landscape after the president’s decision

The president’s announcement that he would veto the law implementing SAFE has triggered a political earthquake. Politicians from the governing coalition have taken to social media, accusing him of national betrayal. Prime Minister Donald Tusk, speaking at an extraordinary cabinet meeting, said the presidential proposal known as “SAFE 0 percent” was merely a stunt devised “to provide an alibi for the veto.” He added that President Karol Nawrocki had missed his chance to act like a patriot.

The Law and Justice party (PiS) has made little effort to hide its satisfaction with the president’s decision. Even before the “SAFE 0 percent” idea was unveiled, there had been uncertainty within the party backing the president about what choice Nawrocki would ultimately make. Still, as tensions grew between the government and the Presidential Palace, a veto was increasingly seen as likely.

After the SAFE decision was announced, PiS politicians privately admitted that the “SAFE 0 percent” proposal may have been a strong argument behind the president’s move on Thursday. At the same time, they say it is unclear whether, when the plan was first presented jointly with the governor of the National Bank of Poland, the veto of EU loans had already been decided. They accuse the government of using harsh rhetoric in response to the concerns raised.

Within PiS there is also awareness that the governing coalition will attack the opposition over its stance on SAFE, suggesting that the party is opposed to supporting the armed forces.

“That may well happen,” one PiS source told us. “But in general, support for the veto has consolidated quite strongly. The most likely outcome is a neutral scenario.”

SAFE and public sentiment

In his Thursday address, the president argued that indebting the state ran counter to Poland’s national interest and could only please its enemies. But what does public opinion say about SAFE?

A CBOS survey from early March found that 52 percent of respondents supported Poland’s participation in SAFE, while 35 percent opposed it. On Wednesday, the IBRiS polling institute published results from a survey asking whether the president should sign the law implementing SAFE. Fifty-four percent answered yes, and 42 percent no.

This indicates that in just a few weeks, support for a presidential signature has weakened. In February, the same institute asked the same question in a poll conducted for Rzeczpospolita daily. At that time, 58 percent favored signing the SAFE law, and only 30 percent opposed it.

A few hours before the president announced his decision, TVN24 media outlet published results from an Opinia24 poll. It showed that 53 percent of respondents believed the president should sign the law, while 25 percent disagreed. More than one in five respondents had no opinion.

“The veto weakens the president’s position”

President Karol Nawrocki’s twenty-eighth veto carries a different political weight than his previous ones. Speaking to XYZ, Prof. Sławomir Sowiński of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University notes that the decision could also prove costly for the president personally. The expert emphasizes that both Prime Minister Donald Tusk and PiS leader Jarosław Kaczyński “did a great deal to make Mr. Nawrocki’s SAFE decision extremely difficult and politically very costly.”

“Any choice would have been expensive,” Mr. Sowiński says, “but I believe the president made the wrong decision. Not only because of the imponderables – issues related to Poland’s security – but also for his own political calculus. Since the presidential elections, Mr. Nawrocki has, thanks to his skill and distinct profile, begun to assert an independent position on the right. He has in some sense become a leader of the right-wing.

“There was a scenario within reach in which he would have shaped the agenda on the right and dealt the cards after the next parliamentary elections. This veto, however, weakens that position. It has placed him in the role of a politician within the orbit of a single party.”

“A dangerous Rubicon for the entire right”

The political scientist also highlights the broader context of President Karol Nawrocki’s decision. In the SAFE debate, much attention has focused on the conditionality attached to the EU loan. Yet this conditionality is standard for EU funds and not comparable to what was seen with the National Recovery Plan (KPO). For the Polish right, the KPO served as an argument against SAFE.

“This is also a dangerous Rubicon for the entire Polish right,” Prof. Sławomir Sowiński notes. “Eurosceptic rhetoric has long been a central part of its discourse. Until now, criticism of the European Union remained largely rhetorical; in practice, before 2023, there were attempts to strengthen Poland’s position and role within the EU. In my view, yesterday’s presidential decision marks a shift in Polish euroscepticism – from rhetoric to policy. This is very dangerous.

“It traps the mainstream right. It now has no positive scenario to offer regarding Poland’s role in the Union. Given developments in Ukraine and Iran, the narrative of the EU as the main threat is increasingly detached from reality. The question is what the former Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki will do in this situation, as he seeks to build a more rational wing within PiS.”

A road of no return?

Could the Law and Justice (PiS) still turn back from this path? According to Prof. Sławomir Sowiński, such a move would seem implausible to voters concerned about Poland’s place in the European Union. It would also be hard to sell to far-right voters, whom Przemysław Czarnek, as a potential prime ministerial candidate, is expected to court.

“I hope PiS will reflect on this, though today it seems very costly. I doubt that Jarosław Kaczyński will choose to do so,” the expert adds.

The situation, in which PiS positions itself against SAFE, could become an opportunity for the government. Coalition politicians are framing PiS and the president as endangering Poland’s security. Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski points out that governments in Hungary and Italy – led by political allies of PiS – are accessing SAFE funds.

“Against the backdrop of major reputational challenges for the government – in education or healthcare, for example – this battle, which positions the government as the advocate of an armed Poland, is a significant opportunity. It is, of course, not a magic engine that will win over all right-wing voters, but in the broader, difficult political ‘here and now,’ it is still a chance for a political offensive,” Prof. Sowiński observes.

European Commission responds

Following the president’s announcement of a veto, a spokesperson for the European Commission spoke out. Thomas Regnier stated that the Commission is finalizing the loan agreement so that it can be signed with Polish authorities and an advance disbursed as early as April.

The advance is expected to amount to 15 percent, or around EUR 6.5 billion, of the total EUR 43.7 billion pool. Poland is the largest beneficiary of the program and will receive roughly one-third of the total SAFE funds.

When asked about the impact of the presidential veto, the Commission representative said it would not involve itself in domestic political debates. He emphasized that the legal framework for implementing the program – whether through legislation or a government regulation – is a matter for Polish authorities to determine.

Key Takeaways

1. Political scientist Prof. Sławomir Sowiński believes the veto weakens the president’s position at the expense of PiS. According to the expert, Nawrocki’s decision represents a Rubicon moment for the entire Polish right, moving euroscepticism from rhetorical posturing into practical politics. At the same time, it presents an opportunity for the government to portray itself as the advocate of Polish security in opposition to both the president and the opposition.
2. SAFE funds will flow to Poland despite President Karol Nawrocki’s veto. Their use, however, will be more complicated, time-consuming, and costly. Had the law been enacted, Poland would have owed less due to differences in interest rates.
3. The biggest losers from the veto are services under the Ministry of the Interior and Administration – the police and the Border Guard – which had counted on a PLN 7 billion boost for equipment modernization and acquisitions. An additional PLN 700 million was earmarked for the State Protection Service. The government intends to access the funds through a resolution, which President Nawrocki cannot veto. However, politicians close to the president have indicated that there could be consequences for those who choose to go down this route.