In Poland, attempts are once again being made to agree on appointments in the security sector: what lies behind the conflict
Ґдов (Вєлицький повіт), 5 січня 2026 р. Віце-прем’єр-міністр і міністр національної оборони Владислав Косіняк-Каміш PAP/Łukasz Gągulski

In Poland, attempts are once again being made to agree on appointments in the security sector: what lies behind the conflict

The Polish government and the president are once again returning to negotiations over the appointment of officers of key security services.

This concerns dozens of personnel decisions blocked due to political confrontation between the head of state and the current government team. Previous consultations produced no results, however both sides declare readiness for a new round of agreements.

This conflict has long gone beyond a purely personnel dispute. It directly affects the balance of powers in the security sector and raises concerns against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine and Poland’s role as one of the key elements of NATO’s eastern flank.

What exactly is blocked

This concerns the appointment and promotion of officers in structures responsible for internal security and military counterintelligence. In accordance with current legislation, such decisions require final approval by the president.

The presidential side refuses to sign the submissions, citing a lack of complete information, doubts about compliance with procedures, and reservations regarding the government’s personnel policy. The presidential administration emphasizes that the head of state cannot perform a purely formal role in matters that directly concern national security.

The government’s position

The government, for its part, considers the blocking of appointments unjustified and politically motivated. Representatives of the cabinet of ministers emphasize that delays in personnel decisions in the special services:
• create a management vacuum;
• reduce the effectiveness of the services’ work;
• may have negative consequences for state security.

Government officials directly link the situation to a broader political conflict between the president and the parliamentary majority that formed the current cabinet.

Why negotiations are being resumed

After several weeks of public escalation, the parties agreed to return to dialogue. According to official information, a new meeting is planned, during which both specific personnel decisions and the format of interaction between the president and the government in the security sphere will be discussed.

For both sides, this issue has reputational significance:
• for the government — demonstrating control over the security bloc;
• for the president — confirming a real role in the system of checks and balances.
Broader political context

The current conflict is part of a long-standing confrontation between the president and the government majority, which represent different political camps. Similar disputes have already arisen around judicial reform, personnel decisions, and legislative initiatives.

At the same time, the security sphere is traditionally considered an area where political differences are minimized. That is why the current situation is attracting increased attention — both inside the country and from Poland’s international partners.

Why this matters right now

Poland plays a key role in:
• the logistics of military assistance to Ukraine;
• coordination of NATO’s eastern flank;
• countering hybrid threats and the activities of the special services of Russia and Belarus.

In this context, any internal instability in the security sector is perceived as a potential risk, even if formally it concerns only personnel procedures.

What’s next

Whether the new attempt at negotiations will lead to the unblocking of appointments remains an open question. Previous experience shows that without a political compromise, technical solutions do not exist in this situation.

In the coming weeks, it will become clear whether the president and the government will be able to separate issues of state security from political confrontation, or whether the conflict around officer appointments will turn into another prolonged institutional dispute.