Donald Tusk makes his case before a confidence vote in Poland
WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Prime Minister Donald Tusk made the case Wednesday to parliament that his centrist, pro-European coalition has brought progress to Poland as he seeks to regain political momentum after his camp's stinging loss in the recent presidential election.
Tusk also acknowledged the new difficulties that he faces in a speech before a vote of confidence which he requested seeking to reaffirm the mandate of his coalition government.
The vote in parliament follows the narrow June 1 defeat of Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski to Karol Nawrocki, a right-wing nationalist backed by U.S. President Donald Trump.
'I am asking for a vote of confidence with full conviction that we have a mandate to govern, to take full responsibility for what is happening in Poland," Tusk said. He said that his coalition's challenges are greater as a result of the presidential election. But he also argued that the narrow defeat of Trzaskowski indicates that support remains strong for his political camp.
Tusk is expected to survive the vote in the lower house of parliament, the Sejm, scheduled for Wednesday afternoon. He remains the most powerful person in the Central European nation, and his government coalition has a parliamentary majority, with 242 seats in the 460-seat body.
Still, the close presidential race has rattled his coalition, an uneasy alliance of his centrist Civic Coalition, the Left party and the center-right Polish People's Party.
Many have started blaming Tusk for Trzaskowski's defeat, and his coalition partners have begun reevaluating the benefits and costs of sticking it out with him.
There are questions about what Tusk can realistically achieve before the next parliamentary election, scheduled for late 2027, and whether it will even survive that long in a new political environment in which the far right has seen an surge in popularity. Polish media and political analysts are debating whether this might be the 68-year-old Tusk's political twilight.
'I know the bitterness of defeat, but I do not know such a word as 'capitulation,' Tusk told lawmakers.
Tusk served as Polish prime minister from 2007-2014 and then as president of the European Council from 2014–2019. He resumed his leadership of the country as prime minister again in December 2023 in a country exhausted by the pandemic and inflation, and with political divisions deep and bitter.
In a sign of those divisions, half of the parliament hall was empty, with right-wing lawmakers boycotting his speech on Wednesday. Tusk criticized them for that, suggesting that they were showing disrespect to the nation by being absent.
For Tusk, the challenge is keeping his fractious coalition intact. A failure would trigger the formation of a caretaker government and possibly an early election — a scenario that could return power to the national conservative Law and Justice party, likely in coalition with the the far-right anti-Ukraine Confederation party, whose candidate placed third in the presidential race.
Tusk had long counted on a Trzaskowski victory to end months of gridlock under President Andrzej Duda, who repeatedly blocked his reform agenda. Instead, Nawrocki is now poised to take office, promising strong resistance to Tusk's plans.
In his speech, Tusk acknowledged that that his coalition was already facing challenges that have only grown more difficult.
'We cannot close our eyes to reality. These challenges are greater than we anticipated as a result of the presidential election,' he said.
Following the presidential election, criticism has grown that Tusk's government has underdelivered on its campaign promises. Many blame him for contributing to Trzaskowski's loss. Much of the criticism comes from within his coalition.
Joanna Mucha, a deputy education minister from the centrist Third Way alliance, posted a blistering Facebook analysis blaming the defeat on Tusk's party. She argued that Law and Justice, which backed Nawrocki, ran a focused, data-driven campaign with a fresh face, and she accused Tusk's party of ignoring polling data, relying on campaign consultants who had lost previous elections, and failing to build support beyond its liberal base.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump's heavy Iran choice: Letters to the Editor — June 21, 2025
The Issue: President Trump deliberation on whether to take military action against Iran's last nuke site. President Trump has raised concerns that a post-regime Iran might resemble Libya after Moammar Khadafy — fractured, chaotic and unstable ('Don fears Daffy decision,' June 20). But the comparison between Iran and Libya is deeply flawed. Advertisement Libya's Khadafy, though brutal, never possessed the strategic capabilities Iran now holds. Iran is already a regional power, capable of threatening Israel — and far beyond — through its ballistic-missile arsenal and emerging nuclear capabilities. Moreover, post-Khadafy Libya lacked a unifying opposition or a credible heir, which fueled its descent into civil war. Advertisement Iran is different. Exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi has emerged as a potential transitional figure, and reports suggest some elements within Iran's military are in quiet contact with his camp. Kim Ezra Shienbaum New Milford, Pa. Advertisement Iran has trained, armed, financed, encouraged and applauded terrorists who have killed American citizens. For almost half a century, Iran's leaders have preached 'Death to America.' There will never be a better opportunity to remove these leaders than now. This will go a long way to promoting peace in the Middle East. Advertisement The people in Iran, especially the women, will thank us. Joe Zeloof Hamilton, NJ Launching attacks on Iran, a nation of more than 90 million, risks an uncontrollable regional war with catastrophic consequences. It is not only immoral — it is insanity. Such escalation would bring mass suffering and global economic instability and further fuel anti-American sentiment. This is not America's war. It must not become one. Advertisement Congress must act now to prevent an unauthorized war and assert its constitutional war powers. We cannot bomb our way out of failed policies. More war will not bring peace or security — it will only deepen chaos. Say no to war with Iran. Advertisement Jagjit Singh Los Altos, Calif. Iran is not Libya. There is a large, oppressed population that is pro-Israel, pro-democracy and pro-United States. Advertisement We should not allow irrational fears of Iran turning into another Libya stop us from standing up for the oppressed Iranians. That would be like the allies in World War II not overthrowing the Nazis because of fear that Germany would descend into chaos. Iran was once a friendly country with a friendly regime that was overthrown by radical Muslims, who might have been stopped if it hadn't been for Carter administration pressure on the shah. We share in the responsibility that led to the regime change from a shah who loved his people and American values, to a regime that oppresses Iranians and hates the United States. Advertisement Gamaliel Isaac Manhattan This nation needs to pull in its swords overseas and attend to the war going on within our own country. It seems as if our government cannot get enough of spending our time and money to meddle in other nations' domestic affairs. Having been a part of these intrusions at one time, I can say most of our various expenditures have been most wasteful and negative. There is absolutely nothing heroic about 'loving war as long as we take few casualties.' This country of ours in now at war with itself and the opposing factions are becoming more polarized. We have enough on our hands right here. Michael G. Merhige Miami, Fla. After decades of failed global negotiations and agreements toward delaying and denying Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, Israel has systematically and spectacularly attacked Iran's nuclear sites. However, destruction of the deeply buried Fordow uranium-enrichment site remains a serious challenge, likely resolvable only by American bunker buster bombs. Will America rise to this challenge? History surely will not be kind should this rarest of moments to finally eliminate this long overhanging threat not be firmly seized. Richard D. Wilkins Syracuse Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@ Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Israel presses ahead with strikes as Trump's 2-week deadline looms
Israeli officials insisted Friday that they will keep up their bombing campaign against Iran, even as President Donald Trump has given Tehran a two-week deadline to come to some sort of diplomatic deal that reins in its nuclear program. Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, laid out his country's case at the U.N. Security Council, facing off Friday with Iranian representatives who urged the world to stop the Israeli strikes. 'Israel will not stop. Not until Iran's nuclear threat is dismantled, not until its war machine is disarmed, not until our people and yours are safe,' Danon declared. The Israeli assertions highlight how Trump's statement that he'll decide 'in the next two weeks' whether to strike Iranian nuclear sites provides an opportunity to Israel as much as it puts pressure on Iran. For Iran, it's two weeks to come to some sort of diplomatic deal with the U.S. that constrains its nuclear, and possibly other, programs. For Israel, it's a focused timeframe to do as much damage as it can to Iran's nuclear and broader military infrastructure before the U.S. may pressure it to accept a diplomatic solution. The more damage Israel does, the more it could weaken an enemy and improve the odds that Iran will capitulate to U.S. demands in the diplomatic process. The strikes themselves couldthreaten the survival of Iran's Islamist regime. Trump told reporters on Friday that he wasn't about to push Israel to halt its assault in Iran while he weighs what the U.S. should do. 'It's very hard to make that request right now,' Trump said. 'If somebody is winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody is losing, but we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens.' A senior administration official, granted anonymity to speak about the president's thinking, said 'everything is still on the table.' 'This is about giving this a little time and seeing if things look any different in a couple weeks,' the official said. Trump's 'two-week' window was delivered Thursday by press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who said, quoting Trump, that his delay in determining whether to join Israel's attack on Iran was 'based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.' Trump often says he'll make decisions in two weeks, only to extend his deadline again or never follow through. Still, Israel and Iran appear to believe the next two weeks will be a crucial phase. Iranian officials showed up for nuclear talks with European officials on Friday in Geneva; Israel pressed ahead with its bombing campaign against Iran, which is responding with missiles. Iranian officials met Friday with European envoys in Geneva in an attempt to revitalize the diplomatic process. The talks ended on an ambiguous note. Iranian officials have said their participation in future talks would hinge on Israel stopping its attacks. Some European representatives said talks should continue regardless, even as they urged both sides to avoid escalation. 'We invited the Iranian minister to consider negotiations with all sides, including the United States, without awaiting the cessation of strikes, which we also hope for,' French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot said. For Israel, the most critical, but perhaps toughest, official objective is eliminating Iran's nuclear facility at Fordo. That facility is buried deep underground, and Israel has been hoping Trump will enter the fight and use special, massive U.S. bombs to destroy it. There are concerns, however, including among Republicans, that Iran could retaliate against U.S. assets if America enters the conflict on any level, dragging America into another Middle Eastern war. Trump campaigned on avoiding such wars. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted that Israel has means to destroy Fordo on its own. It's not clear what those methods could involve, but Israel has significant intelligence operations inside Iran and it has often surprised even Washington with its capabilities. Either way, current and former Israeli officials said they saw no reason for Israel to back off its strikes now, despite calls for deescalation from some world capitals. The more Israel degrades Iran's capabilities, the less able Tehran will be to mount retaliatory attacks on Israel or the United States, should the latter choose to enter the war. From the beginning, 'the Israeli planning was based on the assumption that we have to do it alone,' said a former Israeli diplomat familiar with the situation. The person, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss highly sensitive issues. It's unclear whether there is any deal with Iran that Israel would deem strong enough. There is tremendous distrust of Iran's Islamist regime within Israel's security establishment, leading to a sense that Iran would cheat on any deal. Another unsettled question is whether a deal with Iran will cover only its nuclear program or also curb its ballistic missile initiative and support for proxy militias in the region. Some analysts have argued that Netanyahu decided to begin attacking Iran last week because he was worried earlier nuclear talks between Iran and the Trump administration would yield too weak a deal. If new efforts at diplomacy yield fruit, Trump could pressure Netanyahu to accept whatever deal emerges, potentially even by threatening to withhold weapons and other equipment Israel needs to defend itself against Iran. The war is costly for Israel, which has been fighting on multiple fronts — in particular against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip — since October 2023. As one Israeli official said, Iranian missile attacks feel like 'Russian roulette' to Israeli citizens.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
North Carolina Gov. Stein vetoes his first bills. They are on concealed carry and immigration
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein vetoed his first bills on Friday, blocking for now Republican legislation that would let adults carry concealed handguns without a permit and make state agencies and local sheriffs more active in Trump administration's immigration crackdown. Stein, who took office in January, issued his formal objections to three measures backed by the GOP-controlled General Assembly presented to him last week. The former attorney general also had the option to sign any of them into law, or let them become law if he hadn't acted on the legislation soon. The vetoed measures now return to the legislature, where Republicans are one House seat shy of holding a veto-proof majority. Its leaders will decide whether to attempt overrides as early as next week. Voting so far followed party lines for one of the immigration measures, which in part would direct heads of several state law enforcement agencies, like the State Highway Patrol and State Bureau of Investigation, to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But one House Democrat ended up voting for the other immigration bill that Stein vetoed. It toughens a 2024 law that required sheriffs to help federal agents seeking criminal defendants. GOP prospects for enacting the permitless concealed gun measure, a longtime aspiration for gun-rights advocates, appear dimmer, because two House Republicans voted against the bill and 10 others were absent. Gun bill would let 18-year-olds carry concealed handgun In one veto message, Stein said the gun legislation, which would allow eligible people at least 18 years old to carry a concealed handgun, "makes North Carolinians less safe and undermines responsible gun ownership." Democratic lawmakers argued the same during legislative debate. Current law requires a concealed weapons holder to be at least 21 to obtain a permit. The person must submit an application to the local sheriff, pass a firearms safety training course and cannot 'suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun" to obtain the permit. No safety training would be required if getting a permit is no longer necessary. 'Authorizing teenagers to carry a concealed weapon with no training whatsoever is dangerous,' Stein wrote. Gun-control groups praised the veto. Conservative advocates for the bill say removing the permit requirement would strengthen the safety of law-abiding citizens. 'Law-abiding North Carolinians shouldn't have to jump through hoops to effectively exercise their Second Amendment rights," Senate leader Phil Berger said in a press release criticizing the veto and planning for an override vote in his chamber. Permitless carry is already lawful in 29 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. North Carolina would also be one of the last states in the Southeast to implement that legislation. Immigration bills focus on state agencies, sheriffs One vetoed immigration bill would require four state law enforcement agencies to officially participate in the 287(g) program, which trains officers to interrogate defendants and determine their immigration status. An executive order by President Donald Trump urged his administration to maximize the use of 287(g) agreements. Stein wrote Friday the bill takes officers away from existing state duties at a time when law enforcement is already stretched thin. The measure also would direct state agencies to ensure noncitizens don't access certain state-funded benefits. But Stein said that people without lawful immigration status already can't receive them. The other vetoed bill attempts to expand a 2024 law — enacted over then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's veto — that directed jails to hold temporarily certain defendants whom ICE believe are in the country illegally, allowing time for immigration agents to pick them up. The vetoed bill would expand the list of crimes that a defendant is charged with that would require the jail administrator to attempt to determine the defendant's legal status. A jail also would have to tell ICE promptly that it is holding someone and essentially extends the time agents have to pick up the person. Stein said Friday while he supports sheriffs contacting federal immigration agents about defendants charged with dangerous crimes that they are holding, the law is unconstitutional because it directs sheriffs to keep defendants behind bars 48 hours beyond when they otherwise could be released for a suspected immigration violation. With the veto of this bill, House Speaker Destin Hall said, Stein sided with the 'most radical elements of his party's base over the safety and security of North Carolinians.' Latino advocates and other bill opponents had urged Stein to veto both immigration measures. They say the legislation would cause Hispanic residents to feel intimidated and fear law enforcement.
