Recent developments in the Polish political scene point to a high degree of intertwining between internal factors and external pressures, particularly American, which reflects the nature of the unequal relationship that has historically governed the interaction between Washington and its allies in Central and Eastern Europe. Under the Trump presidency, it appears that US policy towards Poland has evolved beyond merely security and military cooperation, becoming more openly aimed at directly influencing the balances of power and party alliances within the Polish state.
In this context, there have been multiple indications of Washington's dissatisfaction with the composition of the ruling coalition in Poland, prompting it to explore alternative scenarios for reshaping the government from within the parliament, without resorting to early elections. One such scenario involves attempts to attract the Polish People's Party (PSL) to a new alliance with the Law and Justice Party led by Jarosław Kaczyński, while seeking to complete the parliamentary majority with other forces such as the Poland 2050 movement and the Confederation Party. The diplomatic moves and concurrent political statements suggest an organized effort to redistribute alliances in line with American interests in the region.
The sensitivity of this path increases when coupled with the use of explicit pressure tools, especially in the security realm. There have been hints from Washington suggesting that the future of military cooperation could be reconsidered if parliamentary alliances are not rearranged according to American visions. This type of rhetoric presents the Polish political elites with a complex equation, balancing national security needs on one hand and maintaining political and institutional independence on the other. Questions also arise in this context about the nature of commitments that may have been made in closed meetings between Polish and American officials, particularly in light of contentious issues such as the 447 Law and its politically and legally sensitive compensation demands associated with it. The 447 Law is a US legislation enacted in 2018 that requires the US Department of State to track and assess the policies of Central and Eastern European countries, including Poland, regarding compensation for properties confiscated from Holocaust victims, involving contentious cases that lack direct heirs.
These pressures affect not only the executive authority or political parties but also extend to the legislative institution, represented by the Speaker of the Polish Sejm, the second constitutional figure in the political system after the head of the state. His refusal to involve the Polish parliament in a political initiative aimed at supporting US President Trump's nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize was a critical moment in the tensions with Washington. This refusal was not of a limited procedural nature but carried a clear political significance, affirming that the parliament, as a representative of popular sovereignty, cannot be employed as a symbolic tool in serving foreign agendas, regardless of the nature of existing alliance relationships.
The American response to this position was swift and sharp, as public statements from the US ambassador in Warsaw indicated his unwillingness to engage with the Speaker of the Sejm, widely understood as a form of unannounced diplomatic breakup. This behavior deviates from traditional diplomatic norms, which require diplomatic missions to respect the constitutional institutions of the host state and engage with them regardless of political or ideological differences. This stance also marks a shift from practicing indirect political pressure to employing overt diplomatic punishment against an elected official.
On the public opinion level, popular reactions, particularly in the realm of social media, revealed a notable shift in the perception of a broad segment of Poles towards American behavior. Public discussions showed that the United States is no longer seen unanimously as a force above criticism or accountability. This shift is partly due to the political rhetoric characterizing the Trump era, marked by sharpness and directness, which has been reflected in the performance of his diplomatic representatives in several countries, including Poland.
Conversely, there remains a Polish political faction that supports Washington almost unconditionally, regardless of the content of American intervention or its style. This stance was clearly embodied in the alignment of the Law and Justice Party with the US Embassy in recent conflicts, as well as stands issued by official institutions, contributing to deepening internal divisions and provoking criticism from political circles that see this behavior as diminishing national decision-making independence and excessively aligning with external desires.
This issue becomes more complex with the general impression of political and media coordination between the US Embassy and some local actors, whether at the level of parties or the presidential institution, in campaigns targeting specific political figures within the parliament. Despite the difficulty of conclusively proving these hypotheses, the timing of events, similarity of rhetoric, and its intensity, reinforce suspicions about the actual independence of some decision-making centers.
Ultimately, the Polish case reflects a model indicative of the structural tension between the requirements of a strategic alliance with a superpower and the demands of sovereignty, constitutional and democratic institutions. It also reveals a gradual shift in public awareness, increasingly ready to question the legitimacy of foreign intervention, even when it comes from a traditional ally. This shift may have far-reaching implications for the nature of the relationship between Poland and the United States, and for Poland's position within the Atlantic system in the coming years.
