On Wednesday, February 11, 2026, a meeting of the National Security Council, convened by the President of the Republic of Poland, Karol Nawrocki, was held at the Presidential Palace. Opening the session, President Karol Nawrocki stated that the discussions would focus on three main issues: the procurement of armaments under the SAFE (Security Action for Europe) program, Poland’s invitation to the Peace Council, and the eastern social and business contacts of the Marshal of the Sejm, Włodzimierz Czarzasty. He added that recently too many questions have been emerging, while too few reliable answers have been provided.
Photo: Mikołaj Bujak, KPRP
“Each of these matters concerns a different dimension of the security of the Republic of Poland, but they all share one common denominator: the state’s decision-making sovereignty and citizens’ trust in the institutions of the Republic, which are meant to provide them with real, not merely illusory, security,” he noted.
The President of the Republic emphasized that both the first and second agenda items require cooperation among state authorities, as without collaboration and agreement, neither of these projects, clearly under the constitutional framework, will be able to move forward.
“Today’s meeting of the National Security Council (…) is a state-level, collective ‘reality check’ for all of us,” said Karol Nawrocki.
SAFE Program
“Ladies and Gentlemen, the first point. Security, of course, does not tolerate simplifications, shortcuts, or makeshift solutions. That is why today’s meeting of the National Security Council, this is how I see it, is a state-level, shared, collective ‘reality check’ for all of us. We are examining whether the SAFE program can truly serve to strengthen the security of the Republic of Poland. This requires neither excessive public enthusiasm nor hasty rejection, but rather a thorough assessment, clear safeguards, and genuine oversight. That is the purpose of today’s meeting. There can be no unilateral arrangements here, what is needed is cooperation and accountability. State security is not an area where ambiguity, improvisation, or speculation can be allowed. It is a sphere in which every decision must have clearly defined objectives, costs, and consequences. In my view, the government should strive to ensure that all stakeholders are involved in this process, in order to reach the broadest possible agreement on how these funds will be spent, invested, and supervised. Today, I will encourage all of you to engage in such nonpartisan involvement and discussion within the framework of the National Security Council. For that reason, I will also propose specific provisions to be included in the draft legislation, aimed at safeguarding Poland’s interests and security. I would like Poland to approach the SAFE program in a substantive and responsible manner, recognizing its potential importance for enhancing the defense capabilities of member states, while also acknowledging the risks associated with it,” said Karol Nawrocki.
“Over the past few days, we have observed considerable – indeed very considerable – euphoria on the part of the government and politicians from the governing camp, particularly at the level of public messaging, following the approval by the Council of the European Union of Poland’s armament programs under the SAFE loan facility. However, in my view, the Polish public – though I am pleased that the Minister and the Government Plenipotentiary are with us today – has not yet received full information about this program. That is why, as President of Poland and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, I wanted to discuss this matter with you today.
For the sake of clarity, the following questions must be asked – I will not raise all of them now, but we will address them during the closed discussion. First, there is the issue of the loan terms and conditionality. SAFE funds are not non-repayable grants; they are loans. Therefore, a clear answer is needed regarding the true cost of this obligation and the conditions under which it is being extended to us. We are speaking about 43.7 billion EUR, or nearly 190 billion PLN. This is an enormous debt that the Polish state will be repaying for years. Long after we are no longer here, long after we can no longer gather at this table in this palace, that debt will continue to be repaid by our successors. Out of concern for those who will take over responsibility for the Polish state, I am raising these questions. At the same time, although SAFE is formally based on a credit mechanism, it is impossible to ignore the risk of indirect linkage, that is, the connection of disbursements to broader political conditionality. The final decision on disbursements and their terms will rest with the European Commission. As a national community, we have concrete experience in this regard. The National Recovery Plan (KPO) mechanism comes to mind, which in practice proved to be a political and discretionary instrument. In matters of national security, member states must have certainty regarding the predictability and stability of access to funds. The absence of such certainty raises questions about the resilience of the entire mechanism in times of crisis,” said Karol Nawrocki.
“Second, oversight and transparency in spending are also matters of concern to me. The draft legislation on the financial instrument for enhancing security does not currently provide for a dedicated, strengthened anti-corruption oversight mechanism commensurate with the financial scale and pace of procurement. In my view, this is a gap that must be addressed at the legislative stage. It is both reasonable and necessary to disclose the list of 139 projects planned under SAFE before the law is signed. I have also received troubling information in this regard, which we may be able to discuss after this part of the meeting concludes. However, for the sake of public transparency and clarity, especially in the context of indebting our national community for decades to come, it would be appropriate to make public the 139 projects envisaged under SAFE before the legislation is enacted. I will certainly want to review such a list myself. I see no valid argument for withholding this information, considering that, as I have said, we are taking on long-term debt on behalf of citizens, debt that will extend for at least several decades.
The government has declared that as much as 80 percent of the funds from the SAFE program, something that I very much welcome, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Minister, will go to the Polish defense industry. This is, of course, a direction I fully support. However, to date, no documentation has been presented that would substantiate this declaration,” said Karol Nawrocki.
“I hope we will have the time and the capacity to develop such documentation. What is more, an increasing number of signals, including from abroad, suggest that the design of the SAFE program primarily benefits the largest Western European defense conglomerates rather than countries that are still building their own defense potential and are closest to a military conflict, such as Poland. The fact that Germany, one of the largest arms producers and exporters in the European Union, did not apply for SAFE funding at all is, in my view, no coincidence. Of course, when considering loans for armaments, Germany may be seeking more favorable credit terms elsewhere, and I am aware of that. Nevertheless, their absence from this program is also a logical confirmation that their industry will become one of the main beneficiaries of these funds anyway, including through orders placed by other countries. All of us, the Polish President, the Polish government, and all parliamentary groups, have an interest in ensuring that the SAFE program does not turn into support for the economy of our western neighbor, which is going through a certain crisis. We wish them well, of course, but our role is not to support our western neighbor; our role is to safeguard Poland’s interests.
Third, there is a question – and I am glad that General Kukuła is here, and that generals from the National Security Bureau are with us as well – whether the Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland are capable, in a short period of time, of effectively receiving and fielding equipment purchased on this scale; and whether the structure of these purchases truly increases the country’s defense capabilities. And whether it is consistent with the Armed Forces development program for 2025–2039. Without an answer to this, there is, of course, a risk of merely symbolic actions, costly and rapid, yet strategically questionable. This is something we should discuss. The goal, of course, cannot be simply to buy for the sake of buying. Every expenditure in this area must be assessed not through the lens of speed or political pressure – which is precisely what we most want to avoid – but through its actual impact on operational capabilities.
These are, Ladies and Gentlemen, the three most important fundamental questions, in my view, about the SAFE loan facility, and they require swift, detailed, and concrete answers. Today’s meeting is an excellent opportunity to obtain them,” said Karol Nawrocki.
Donald Trump’s Peace Council
“The Peace Council is the second topic of today’s meeting. Poland has received an invitation to join the Peace Council – a new international initiative of the President of the United States, Donald Trump, intended to foster cooperation among states to promote stabilization and prevent conflicts, with an initial focus on the conflict in the Gaza Strip. This is a proposal that could have real strategic consequences. We all realize it may have tangible strategic, political, military, alliance-related, as well as economic and financial implications. As President of the Republic of Poland, tasked with safeguarding the state’s security and representing Poland in international relations—I consider it my duty to ensure that this matter is analyzed thoroughly and seriously. All the more so because this issue is not closed – as we know – and it is giving rise to further developments that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister are aware of.”
“There is an invitation for Poland on February 19, I have personally received such an invitation to Washington, for the inaugural meeting of the Peace Council. This confirms that the matter remains open and urgent, which is why it has also been placed on the agenda of today’s meeting.
In my view, Mr. Prime Minister, Gentlemen Ministers, the issue today is not that the government has doubts. After all, we are meeting precisely to clarify doubts. I have doubts regarding SAFE and I am raising questions; the government may have doubts regarding the Peace Council, that is entirely natural. The problem, however, is that the government has not formally presented to me, as President of Poland, any concrete position on this matter, despite my discussions with the Prime Minister – both formal and informal; we discussed it when I was in Davos.”
“I am aware that any final decision on Poland’s accession to international structures or organizations ultimately rests with the President of Poland – at the end of the entire process – but it nonetheless requires an initiative from the government. We already tested this with the Prime Minister in the context of the Treaty of Nancy, which I ultimately had to sign. I had my reservations, but Polish-French relations are beneficial for Poland, allied, strategic. I believe we may face similar situations in the near future; negotiations with the United Kingdom are ongoing. Therefore, I am simply appealing to the government to adopt a formal position on the Peace Council, whatever that position may be, so as to initiate the necessary process for making such a decision. As of today, Ladies and Gentlemen, there is no recommendation, no substantive analysis, no opinion, neither positive nor negative. In my view, this is deeply unserious if we regard the United States and invitations from the President of the United States as matters that must undoubtedly be treated with seriousness.
There is also blatant disinformation – which I want to address – claiming that Poland would have to contribute one billion U.S. dollars in order to join the Peace Council.
Ladies and Gentlemen, anyone who has reviewed the Peace Council’s charter knows that this is untrue. The charter clearly states that a country joins the Council upon invitation by the Chair, that is, the United States, for a period of three years. After that period, the Chair decides whether to extend the country’s participation. This term limit does not apply only to those countries that, in the first year of their membership, contribute one billion dollars. In other words, such a contribution is voluntary. Nevertheless, this claim has been used in public discourse to undermine the very rationale of the Counci, or at least Poland’s potential participation in it. That is a deliberate attempt to mislead public opinion. I want everyone watching us to understand that no one expects a payment at the moment of accession to the Peace Council. This is either a lack of knowledge or intentional disinformation directed at the public,” said Karol Nawrocki.
“Today’s meeting of the National Security Council, with regard to this point, has one objective: to obtain a clear answer as to whether the Republic of Poland sees in this initiative an opportunity, a risk, or both.
State security does not tolerate a decision-making vacuum in which key international matters remain without assessment. Before our eyes, a new global security order is taking shape. Existing mechanisms are being redefined in real time. We are witnesses to this, participants in it, and new formats of cooperation are emerging faster than ever before. In this situation, the fundamental question is: does Poland want to be present where key decisions are made, or does it want merely to observe them from the sidelines, away from the decision-making table? That is a question for all of us today, Ladies and Gentlemen, and one that we must discuss. Participation in such initiatives cannot be judged lightly through the prism of personal sympathies or antipathies toward particular leaders, nor through short-term political calculations. Reason of state is not guided by emotions – we should be aware of that. It is guided by the security interests of the state. We know well that there are no alliances forever and no support without cost. That is the natural practice of diplomacy. History has taught us that we must be firm and pragmatic in our external relations, and that political emotions in foreign policy are always a poor advisor. Therefore, I expect to receive a clear declaration as to the Polish government’s position on Poland’s accession to the Peace Council, so that I may either proceed—or not proceed—with the process that, constitutionally, is carried out by the President of the Republic of Poland.
I would also like to say something personally, in front of the cameras and all of you, about my own position on this matter. During the election campaign, I was asked whether I would sit down at the table with Vladimir Putin. I replied that I would sit down with anyone if the interests of the Republic of Poland required it. Personally, I am wanted by Vladimir Putin and by the Russian Federation, so I am in no hurry to sit at the table either with the criminal Putin or with a representative of the Lukashenko regime. However, if the interests of the Polish state require it, then as President of Poland I am prepared to do so. I am certain that some of you would not wish to spend time with me either today, and I, perhaps, would not necessarily…, I am looking at the Marshal, who is nodding, so yes, I would prefer to spend time in different company, and from what I understand, the Marshal would as well. But the security interests of the Polish state require us to sit together. In that spirit and with that understanding, Ladies and Gentlemen, I ask you to approach the issue of Poland’s potential accession, or non-accession, to the Peace Council. Let me also remind you that in the United Nations, including in its decision-making body, Russia also holds a seat. Does that mean we should withdraw from the United Nations? Not long ago, in that very forum, the Russian ambassador, Putin’s representative, sat at the same table as our Deputy Minister, though not with the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself. The same situation applies to the G20, to whose summit I was invited as the first Polish President. I did not hear expressions of enthusiasm regarding the fact that the President of the United States invited the President of Poland to the G20, but I did not hear criticism either, and for that, I am grateful. Criticism, in the sense that in December, at the G20, we will most likely meet – representatives of Minister Domański, Minister Domański himself, and I as President of Poland – with representatives of the Russian Federation. So, if I may ask, Ladies and Gentlemen: let us not mislead public opinion. Let us safeguard the interests and security of the Polish state when making our decisions. Therefore, I appeal to the government today to present the National Security Council with a concrete and substantive recommendation. Whatever that recommendation may be, the Polish state needs a responsible decision on this matter, not a very convenient silence,” said Karol Nawrocki.
The Case of Sejm Marshal Włodzimierz Czarzasty
“The third matter concerns the Marshal of the Sejm. This issue relates to state security standards and to how state services should respond to information about possible eastern social and business contacts of the Marshal of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland, Włodzimierz Czarzasty. Let me state this clearly: at a time of war beyond our eastern border, amid intensified hybrid activities, influence operations, disinformation pressure, daily ‘balloon incidents’, that is, hybrid attacks on the territory of the Republic of Poland, and what is taking place in the Baltic Sea, any information raising doubts about potential contacts with citizens of the Russian Federation or structures linked to the Russian state, involving individuals holding the highest offices, must be thoroughly clarified. It must be thoroughly clarified for the sake of the Republic’s security. This is a matter of procedures; this is a matter of security. The state has an obligation to act preventively, before a risk becomes a reality. The case of the Russian agent Rubtsov, described as operating under journalistic cover, should serve as a serious warning to us all. The most dangerous influence operations rarely resemble a spy thriller. More often, they appear as ordinary relationships, business dealings, acquaintanceships, favors, shared interests. That is why the state has a duty to examine not only what is sensational, but also what may be vulnerable to pressure and foreign influence,” said Karol Nawrocki.
“In Poland – pursuant to Article 131 of the Constitution – if the President of the Republic of Poland is unable to perform his duties, the responsibilities of head of state are assumed by the Marshal of the Sejm, and if he is unable to do so, then by the Marshal of the Senate.
Not the prime minister, nor anyone else further down the hierarchy, the Marshal of the Sejm assumes the duties of head of state. Only specific individuals holding specific offices, Ladies and Gentlemen, can become head of state at such a moment, should anything happen. And that happened quite recently, 16 years ago. This is our recent history, Poland’s contemporary history, when the Marshal of the Sejm assumed the duties of head of state in the Republic of Poland. It is part of our tragic national history, not so distant.
This means one thing: the Marshal of the Sejm is not merely a political role. It is a constitutional office, embedded in the continuity of the state, and everything connected with it also concerns the state and its security.
We can put it in a bluntly simple idiom: the Marshal of the Sejm is one heartbeat away from the presidency. If God were to decide to call the President of the Republic of Poland from this world today, then tomorrow the duties of President would be carried out by Marshal Włodzimierz Czarzasty. That is why this matter is so important—and why it is a matter of state. And that is precisely why any doubts concerning the Marshal must be addressed at today’s meeting. This is a matter of national security. In such matters, words are not enough; political talk shows are not enough; interviews are not enough. There must be a clear and transparent verification. I personally have undergone such verification and screening many times, Ladies and Gentlemen – and I want to refer to that as well – under different governments and different prime ministers. I want to be very precise here, so that we can see, Ladies and Gentlemen, how things are, and how they could be if God were to make such a decision and I were not here with you today, or tomorrow.”
“I was first subject to a vetting procedure by the Internal Security Agency (ABW) in 2009. As part of that process, I received a security clearance at the “top secret” level. I was vetted a second time in 2014 and once again received an ABW-issued “top secret” security clearance. The third time was in 2021, when I received an ABW-issued clearance authorizing access to classified information ranging from confidential to top secret. At the same time, since 2021, the current President of Poland, who is here with you today, has held a valid certificate for the protection of classified information of NATO, the European Union, and the European Space Agency. And yet we find ourselves in a situation where it is assumed there is no problem if the Marshal of the Sejm, who could become President of Poland, Ladies and Gentlemen, has no security clearance at all, because he has not entered the vetting procedure.
Ladies and Gentlemen, let us therefore sum up (there will be time, Madam Deputy, keep calm, there will be time): since January 2009, I have held security clearances issued by the special services overseen by the Prime Minister present here today, Donald Tusk; Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz; Prime Minister Beata Szydło; and Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki. And yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, that is how it should look. We cannot allow a situation in which the duties of head of state are assumed by a person who does not have a top secret clearance. In a serious state that takes the Constitution and the institutional order seriously, under conditions of war and real threat, doubts concerning a person so high in the constitutional hierarchy as the Marshal of the Sejm are not left to speculation. Such matters must be checked thoroughly, and in a manner that guarantees the highest level of reliability.”
“According to publicly available information, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Marshal of the Sejm, when he was a member of the parliamentary committee for special services, did not participate in those portions of the committee’s meetings that concerned materials classified as ‘top secret,’ because he did not undergo the extended vetting procedure conducted by the Internal Security Agency. In light of these circumstances, a direct question must be asked: why did the Marshal not undergo the extended security clearance procedure? Was this a decision based on formal reasons, or was it due to concerns about the consequences of disclosing certain relationships or circumstances? We do not know, Mr. Marshal.
As you know, the decision to elect the Marshal of the Sejm was the result of a specific political architecture, with the architect sitting here, the Prime Minister, and the governing majority. That is how democracy works; I do not question that, Ladies and Gentlemen. Yes, it is the outcome of a particular political arrangement. However, we must remember that the second person in the state, in the electoral district where he ran as the top candidate, received just over 20,000 votes, clearly fewer than another candidate placed lower on the same list. Nevertheless, within the framework of this political architecture, it so happened that the Marshal became the second person in the Polish state, and that must be respected by all of us, even if we criticize it. That is how our system and our constitutional order function. But for heaven’s sake, we have the right to know whether the Marshal has access to top secret information in light of what is happening in the Republic. And if he does not, then he should not be Marshal of the Sejm. This shows, Ladies and Gentlemen, that this political decision is not simply beyond discussion. If that is the case, then all the more reason why unquestionable standards of security and transparency are necessary in this specific situation. As President, elected directly by more than 10 million citizens, I have a duty to insist upon and safeguard such standards. I believe this reasoning clearly addresses any doubts as to why we are dealing with this matter today; it is a serious issue,” said Karol Nawrocki.
“I want to state this clearly – this is not about the Marshal’s personally, it is about the office. It is about the security of the Polish state; it is about the interests of the Republic. In the name of those interests, this matter must be unequivocally clarified by the competent services – Mr. Minister, the Coordinator of the Special Services is here – in the appropriate manner, with a publicly communicated conclusion to the extent possible, without, of course, violating state secrets. Poland cannot be a state that allows even a shadow of risk to hang over an office which, in a constitutional crisis, is to assume the duties of head of state.
Ladies and Gentlemen, national security requires courage, responsibility, and a cool-headed analysis of the facts. Today’s meeting of the National Security Council is meant to be precisely such a moment—a moment of honest discussion about the interests of the Republic of Poland. I hereby open the meeting of the National Security Council. Thank you,” said Karol Nawrocki.
