As of January 2026, Polish President Karol Nawrocki publicly declared the idea of a permanent American base inside the Polish territory is being discussed with the Trump administration.[1] Poland is one of the prominent members of NATO’s eastern flank, also known as the ‘Arc of Insecurity,' and has always been vocal on the forward presence of US troops in Europe. The nature of the Russian special military operation inside Ukraine and the implementation of attrition warfare by President Putin have made it clear to the European members of NATO that the ultimate purpose of President Putin is to evade the ground realities in Eastern Europe to incorporate it once again into its ‘sphere of dominance.’ Threats from the Russian Federation, Poland’s national interest, and fear of the withdrawal of the US troops from Europe under the Trump administration have once again compelled Poland to appease and encourage the US simultaneously to install a permanent base in the country.

The idea of ‘Fort Trump’ - a permanent US military base in Poland - seems to be a novel proposal. However, it is based on some historical desires and foundations. It all started with the assumption of the Oval Office by President Trump during his first term in 2018. President Trump’s conservative policies and anti-NATO stance compelled the Polish officials to put forward this idea. In June 2020, former Polish President Andrzej Duda met Donald Trump and declared, “Our responsibility as European members of the North Atlantic Alliance is to make sure that, should any decisions be made to withdraw some troops from any of the NATO member states in Europe, these units are not withdrawn from Europe, and that the United States does not decide to relocate them back to the United States or to relocate them to another part of the world.”[2] Thus, the threats by President Trump of the US leaving NATO and increased defense spending resulted in Polish desire to ultimately protect the alliance and presence of the US troops in Europe - replacing them from the territory of one member state to the other.

The questions here arise: what does Poland actually desire, and what could the Trump 2.0 administration offer? Reviving the idea of ‘Fort Trump’ once again is a clever move by Polish officials. It can be viewed from two perspectives: political and strategic. Politically, the idea is more akin to ‘appeasement of Trump’ through naming the base after him. President Trump is famous for raising his tacit achievements and associating them with his name. The establishment of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) is its best manifestation.[3] Thus, Poland is exploiting this opportunity to grab Trump’s attention towards this matter, with a hope that the idea might inspire him, if not strategically, then at least politically. On the other hand, if one observes keenly, the idea of having a permanent presence of US troops in Poland is a strategic move at this critical time. The Trump 2.0 administration is much more determined to reduce the US military presence in Europe as compared to the previous term.

As of now, approximately 10,000 troops are stationed in Poland on a rotational basis. And President Trump has also put forward the idea of reducing the US troops in Eastern Europe too. This has raised alarms in Polish strategic circles. Currently, more than 35000 active American duty personnel are stationed in Germany.[4] The withdrawal of these troops is quite imminent under the Trump administration. Polish authorities want to shift these troops from Germany to Poland, in particular southeastern Poland. This would give two significant benefits: it would make Germany seem less hostile, since forces would be moved between European nations, increasing NATO's deterrence. Secondly, Germany's position in the coalition may shift to a reception, staging, and onward movement (RSOM) hub for subsequent forces from the U.S. and Western Europe. As President Trump is renowned for his deal-making strategy, he might consider doing so. Polish officials are anxious about any kind of US-Russia deal to end the Ukraine war, which could undermine the already deteriorating situation of the alliance. In exchange for removing tactical nukes from Belarus by Russia, Trump might consider withdrawing troops from the eastern flank, including Poland.

The historical reasons and Russophobia in most of the eastern European nations have compelled Polish officials to put forward this idea. As per them, if Russia is allowed to annex Ukraine, it would embolden its revanchist aims, which could result in further expansion inside Europe. Another major reason lies behind the conservative internationalist foreign policy approach of the Trump administration, whereby only the Western Hemisphere is seen from a pure security lens, while the Indo Pacific is reserved for hybrid contest by Pentagon. With the National Security Strategy (NSS) and National Defense Strategy (NDS) blatantly declaring Europe at the brink of civilizational erasure, it became imperative for Poland to bilaterally deal with the US to protect its territorial integrity and broader NATO cohesion.[5] As a result, Polish President Karol Nawrocki thought about suggesting a quid pro quo to Trump at Davos in order to convince Trump. This would include an agreement on a permanent US military base - Fort Trump - in exchange for his nation joining the Board of Peace.

The shifting of troops from Germany or any other Western European state to Poland and other European states comes with both benefits and costs. On the positive side, a permanent military presence in Poland would contain Russia from future aggression. Moreover, this would enhance the force readiness in the sense that if deployed in Germany, the troops will have to move from German territory to eastern Europe in case of any future conflict, increasing cost and time. Originally stationing these troops in Poland would fill the lacuna, simultaneously allowing Germany to provide strategic depth and logistical support. Similarly, stationing a large number of troops in states not directly threatened by the adversary also seems useless. Instead, enhancing the forward presence of troops would reduce the chances of troop saturation and irregular divisibility.

On the negative side, shifting troops from western to eastern Europe would come with significant economic costs. Although Poland is ready to fund, it still requires assistance from other member states. The EU could play a major role in this regard through its structural funds. In this way, NATO-EU relations could be improved. Secondly, the idea of establishing ‘Fort Trump’ completely depends upon American bipartisan politics. It can only be accomplished under the Trump administration (or Republicans) as the idea is completely based on appeasing President Trump. Moreover, Democrats would not only deny naming a fort for Trump but would also reject the idea of troop withdrawal from western Europe, in particular Germany.

In essence, the idea of establishing ‘Fort Trump’ in Poland apparently seems to be an appeasement of President Trump. However, in between the lines, it projects a strategic and time specific decision, serving American, Polish and NATO interests simultaneously. As the idea is not so novel, it most probably would be taken into consideration by the Trump administration under its give-and-take approach.

Hammad Gillani is pursuing international relations programme, with a focus on Euro-Atlantic politics. He is working as a full-time researcher and writer at various national and international news outlets. Currently, he is serving as a Research Intern at Strategic Vision Institute (SVI), Islamabad, Pakistan. 

End Notes

[1] Boniecki, Marcin. 2026. “Polsat News: Nawrocki Z Oferta Dla Trumpa. Chodzi O Rade Pokoju.” PolsatNews.pl. Polsat News. January 24, 2026. https://www.polsatnews.pl/wiadomosc/2026-01-24/polsat-news-nawrocki-z-oferta-dla-trumpa-chodzi-o-rade-pokoju/?utm.

[2] Plucinska, Joanna, and Idrees Ali. 2020. “U.S.-Polish Fort Trump Project Crumbles.” Reuters, June 10, 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-polish-fort-trump-project-crumbles-idUSKBN23H37O/.

[3] Garo Paylan. 2026. “Trump Wants ‘Peace through Construction.’ There’s One Place It Could Actually Work.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. February 2, 2026.

https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2026/01/armenia-azerbaijan-peace-construction-trump.

[4] “US Troops in Europe by Country 2025| Statista.” 2025. Statista. 2025. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1294271/us-troops-europe-country/?srsltid=AfmBOor6W-ppuhg-sHRDCLK-zuSFSwhUs5o26G9bnPfi9wtC6N_ffrh2.

[5] Bergmann, Max. 2025. “The NSS That Could Destroy the NATO Alliance.” Csis.org. 2025. https://www.csis.org/analysis/nss-could-destroy-nato-alliance.

?