The Friday presidential debate, broadcast simultaneously by TVP, TVN24 and Polsat, was announced as the culmination of the election campaign. Indeed, the clash of Rafał Trzaskowski and Karol Nawrocki was not just a political spectacle. It was a collision of 2 ideas about president, state and community.
PRESIDENCE DEBATE 2025 | KAROL NARROCKI – RAPHAL TRZASKI. Photo. youtube.com/@tvpinfo
The format established six thematic blocks: health, economy, social policy, security, abroad affairs and worldview. Jacek Prusinowski, the leader, limited himself to time surveillance – the candidates had full freedom not only to answer questions, but besides to enter a direct confrontation.
The differences between them were revealed not only in content, but besides in style. Trzaskowski was calm, factual, sometimes ironic, but never abusive. Nawrocks – offensive, aggressive, powerfully emotional, more attacking than responding.
Health: numbers versus narrative
Already in the first circular of debate, candidates faced the subject of intellectual wellness of children and the condition of Warsaw clinics. Karol Nawrocki accused Rafał Trzaskowski of privatization, long queues and deficiency of concern for seniors. Trzaskowski resisted these attacks, pointing out that the capital had built a network of intellectual counseling, founded scholarships for pediatric psychiatry doctors and increased the budget by 43% since 2019.
"It is the self-governments who are carrying wellness protection today, despite under-funding from the government," reminded Trzaskowski. Nawrocki did not respond in numbers – he repeated accusations.
In addition, during the debate, the subject of the in vitro programme and the availability of medical services was discussed. Trzaskowski stressed the importance of urban schemes supporting fertility treatment, while Nawrocki expressed doubts about backing specified initiatives from the state budget.
The candidates besides referred to the issue of queues to doctors. Trzaskowski pointed out that Warsaw invests in the improvement of medical infrastructure in order to shorten the waiting time for visits. Nawrocki argued, however, that the problem of railways is due to the failure of the strategy managed by the current city authorities.
Foreign Policy: Who Knows the World?
In the second part of the debate, the candidates raised migration, the asylum pact and European policies. Nawrocki accused Trzaskowski of ties to abroad funds and Soros. Trzaskowski powerfully denied: "I have a Polish business. And by the way, I like Soros alternatively than Orban."
Responding to allegations of “Signing everything in the dark” In Brussels, Trzaskowski recalled that it was the government of the Law and Justice that blocked the payment of funds from the National Recovery Plan without complying with the regulation of law. He stressed that his abroad policy was based on cooperation and respect for partners from the European Union.
Referring to transatlantic relations, Trzaskowski noted that president Trump “He does not like those who come to kiss him in the ring”, suggesting that he appreciates strong and influential partners in Europe. He thus stressed the request for a partnership with the US based on common respect and business.
It was in this block that the most visible difference in global competence was: Trzaskowski operated on the experience of the Euro MP and the president of the capital. Nawrocki – words about “the dictatorship of Brussels”
Economy and Green Governance: Reality versus Presentation
In the economical section, the candidates faced the Green Deal, US customs policy and the future of the Central Communication Port. Karol Nawrocki attacked Rafał Trzaskowski, accusing him of selling public property, including a building at 66 Marszałkowska Street in Warsaw. Trzaskowski calmly replied: “I stopped the process of reprivatization. I stopped the decision due to the fact that it was controversial and needed clarification."
When Trzaskowski asked the rival to stand against the US's planned customs on European goods, Nawrocki admitted that during his visit to the United States, he did not address the subject. The candidate KO utilized this minute to remind that it was the government of the Law and Justice Office – with Mateusz Morawiecki and Janusz Wojciechowski – introduced the Green Deal, which he is now criticizing.
Trzaskowski added that Poland was omitted from the strategical plans of the microchip manufacture even before Nawrocki left for the US – which undermined the effectiveness of his "diplomatastic success".
In this block, the difference in competence was clear: Trzaskowski operated with facts and experience. Nawrocks – emotion and slogan.
Social policy and value choices
In 1 of the next rounds of the debate, Rafał Trzaskowski asked Karol Nawrocki about the reports that the staff of the PiS candidate was to promise Grzegorz Braun a pardon in exchange for support in the second circular of elections. Braun, who received over a million votes in the first round, gave a speech to the portal It's about timethat he received specified a proposal from the “backroom” of Nawrocki.
Nawrocki replied that there was no information about specified an event and considered the question to be ‘split’, adding: “If we are to talk about rumors that individual from my staff, individual from my envoy, promised something, it is not the presidential level.”
Trzaskowski expressed concern about this kind of alliance, saying: "I am terrified of this kind of alliance, and especially of this kind of corruption proposals" .
The discussion besides came down on run funding. Nawrocki accused Trzaskowski of being dependent on developers. This reposted that his run was supported by citizens, while Nawrocki's run was funded by individuals associated with state contracts.
In the context of Nawrocki's past connected with cheering acts, Trzaskowski stated: "These are not qualified for the presidency. We request a head of state, not a man who runs in the woods with kibols.”
Security: rhetoric vs reality
The last part of the debate focused on key safety challenges – from the protection of the border with Belarus, to relations with Ukraine, to Poland's place in transatlantic relations. Karol Nawrocki stressed the request for a hard speech towards Kiev and spoke of “the righteousness in telling the fact to Zelensk”. Rafał Trzaskowski replied that an effective policy is not based on rhetoric, but on action – and recalled the visa scandal from the time of the Law and Justice Government, in which as many as 360 000 visas were issued to non-EU citizens according to the NIK report. "It was your country that had a gap in the system," he stressed.
The safety thread passed smoothly on the relation with the US and hybrid threats. Trzaskowski spoke about the request to strengthen the presence in NATO and build a coherent European policy, Nawrocki – about strengthening the sovereignty and independency of Poland on the global stage. However, there were no specifics regarding plans for military cooperation or modernization of the army.
The final accent of this part brought confrontation against the background of the Central Communication Port. Trzaskowski accused the rival of supporting the task without reflection, which he felt was unrealised, poorly prepared and based on propaganda presentations. "There was only a field and a fewer guys who watched. Nothing else," he said. He added that the current version of the CPK should be linked to the improvement of the railway network and the protection of Chopin Airport.
Nawrocki tried to respond, stressing the strategical importance of the CPK, but did not supply details or data.
The debate ended with a sharp exchange of views on the past and candidates' contacts. Nawrocki showed a photograph of Trzaskowski with a individual later accused of sexual crimes. The KO candidate replied that he took pictures of hundreds of people and was not liable for their future fates. At the same time, he accused Nawrock of ties to the kibolski communities and participation in the settings. "The Lord boasted of contacts with the underworld, and now you are withdrawing from it," he said.
During this phase of the debate, Trzaskowski maintained an organization and offensive tone. Despite the emotional repost, Nawrocks had to defend themselves more frequently than they did.
The final impression?
The May 23 debate did not settle the campaign, but revealed the key difference between the candidates. This was not a conversation about programmes or detailed solutions. For many viewers, it has become alternatively a test of character – a test which of the candidates can rise assurance and bear the weight of the presidency. This is the difference that can find the result of the second round.
DF, thefad.pl
