News spread around the world that Poland’s president vetoed the EU’s SAFE defense loan program. Yet the lack of his signature does not actually block the program from taking effect. The dispute instead reflects something more serious: the first drastic breach of a longstanding red line in Poland’s domestic politics – security.
The Polish presidential veto concerns the implementing law for the SAFE loan program, from which Poland is expected to be the largest beneficiary, receiving €44 billion ($50 billion) in low-interest credit. Repayment of the principal would begin after 10 years, with interest set at 3.17%. The funds are intended for military spending, but also for other uniformed services such as the police and border guard.
Equally important, a large share of the SAFE funds would be directed toward developing Poland’s domestic defense industry and making purchases within Poland and Europe. The program would strengthen defense capabilities, particularly in air defense, drone warfare, and missile defense.
Initially, President Karol Nawrocki had reservations about the program, but a veto was not inevitable. On March 4, Nawrocki held a joint press conference with the president of the National Bank of Poland (NBP), Adam Glapiński. They presented an alternative proposal called “Polish SAFE 0%.”
This alternative program would be financed from NBP profits, with funds potentially drawn from the difference between the bank’s gold purchase price and the current market value of Poland’s gold reserves (about 570 tons). The idea raises many questions, however – starting with the fact that since 2022 the central bank has been recording losses and has not transferred profits to the state budget.
Crossing a red line
On March 10, Prime Minister Donald Tusk and President Nawrocki met to discuss SAFE and the proposals on the table. According to the prime minister, Nawrocki did not declare support for the European program. Two days later, in a national address, he announced the veto.
Until now, security policy had not been a point of dispute between the government and the presidential camp, backed by the largest opposition party, Law and Justice (PiS). Despite intense polarization and deep political conflict in Poland, there had been a consensus on security matters. The president’s veto may therefore mark a new stage of polarization – and a particularly dangerous one.
In the current situation, a clash between the government and the president, who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, is clearly harmful. The veto was politically supported by PiS. As recently as 2025, the former defense minister from PiS, Mariusz Błaszczak, wrote that the European SAFE program was a major opportunity for the armed forces. Today, however, PiS circles argue that the main beneficiary of the program would be… Germany.
Behind the scenes, there is talk that American lobbying targeted the program.
German industry would certainly participate in contracts, but there is no basis to assume that Berlin would benefit the most. The government camp has not held back either, with some voices accusing the president of national betrayal. Among voters, however, the European SAFE program itself has been received rather positively.
The president’s veto was also enthusiastically welcomed by some American circles, including Victoria Coates of the pro-Trump think tank The Heritage Foundation. She has argued that rejecting the European SAFE program could enable closer alignment between Poland and the United States. This points to a deeper layer behind the dispute.
Behind the scenes, there is talk that American lobbying targeted the program – both for business reasons and out of a desire to weaken Europe. Although Europe remains a US ally, differences in interests are becoming increasingly visible. A united Europe could also be a competitor to the United States.
At the same time, Poland’s defense purchases from the US are enormous: F-35 Lightning II fighter jets, M142 HIMARS launchers, M1A2 Abrams tanks, MIM-104 Patriot systems, and more. The SAFE program does not threaten these contracts. Poland has tried to pursue a balancing policy – maintaining close ties with the United States while remaining firmly pro-European.
At the same time, European partners – including France, whose defense industry would certainly benefit from SAFE – are also pursuing their own interests.
Competition continues over the tender to build additional Polish nuclear power plants, with American and French companies vying for the project. There is also the announced – though still rather vague – review of France’s nuclear doctrine and the potential for some form of Polish participation in that system.
The veto, however, does not mean that Poland will abandon the European SAFE loan. The president vetoed only the implementing legislation meant to manage the program domestically. Tusk’s government says it has a “plan B” and intends to move forward regardless. What remains uncertain are funds intended for services other than the military – such as the police or the border guard. The government insists it has ideas for addressing this as well.
One thing is clear: Poland loses in this political quarrel over SAFE. Polarization and the breakdown of social unity undermine the country’s resilience. European unity also suffers – though it would be difficult to argue that Poland alone is responsible.
The winners are the United States, which maintains influence on the right side of Poland’s political scene, and – unfortunately – Russia, which benefits from political conflict and destabilization.
There are also accusations that President Nawrocki is somehow playing in a Russian theater. That, however, is not true – Russia has even issued a wanted notice for him. The dispute over SAFE is above all another act in Poland’s ongoing political theater, with lobbying operating behind the scenes.