What has the Management Commission determined about the F-35A negotiations?

The Management Commission of the National Council concluded that no fixed price was contractually agreed with the US, despite the DDPS and Viola Amherd publicly stating the existence of a fixed price. The judgment is severe: the negotiations were conducted in an 'inadequate' manner. The greatest criticality concerns the gap between public statements and actual contractual facts.

What was the timing of the delay in communicating to the federal government?

The first hints of possible additional costs had been received by armasuisse as early as August 2024, and Viola Amherd had been informed. However, he communicated to colleagues in the Federal Council only in March 2025, a delay of about 7-8 months. The information came two months after he announced his resignation, preventing a timely discussion within the government.

What are the procedural consequences identified by the Commission?

The CoG identified critical gaps in communication, legal verification and reporting times. The exclusion of Armasuisse's internal legal team has compromised responsibility and continuity. The 7-8 month delay prevented the government from timely assessing the budgetary implications and instructing negotiators clearly. These procedural errors violate the principles of transparency of Swiss direct democracy.

What does this report mean for future federal negotiations?

The CoG report represents an opportunity to correct decision-making processes. The lessons indicated include: documenting every phase of the negotiation, fully involving internal legal teams, communicating risks without delay, checking every assumption before public communications, ensuring full access to documents. These principles will need to guide large future federal government purchases.

F-35A: no fixed price agreed (cross-border guide)

Di Redazione Frontaliere Ticino · Published on 8 September 2026

Swiss Federal Palace in Bern, representing national transparency and parliamentary oversight

CoG investigation: no fixed price in the contract. Viola Amherd informed the government 7-8 months late. Serious gaps in federal transparency.

Context

In Brief

The Management Commission of the National Council heavily criticizes the F-35A negotiations
No fixed price contractually agreed with the USA according to the MC
Viola Amherd informed the Federal Council with a 7-8 month delay (August 2024 → March 2025)
External law firm excludes armasuisse's internal legal service from the negotiations

Key Facts

Who: Management Commission (MC) of the National Council
What: Investigation into F-35A negotiations and breach of information transparency
When: August 2024 (first signs of additional costs) → March 2025 (information to the Federal Council)
Where: Bern; negotiations conducted with the United States
Key figure: Viola Amherd, former defense minister (DDPS)
Outcome: MC judges the organization of negotiations and delayed communication as 'inadequate'

The MC report: no fixed price agreed

The Management Commission of the National Council investigated the negotiations for the purchase of F-35A jets, concluding that 'no fixed lump-sum price was agreed with the USA'. The MC's judgment is severe: the Federal Department of Defense, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS) and the then defense minister Viola Amherd conducted the negotiations in an 'inadequate' manner.

The most serious problem concerns the gap between what was stated publicly and the contractual facts. The DDPS communicated to Parliament and the public with 'absolute certainty' the existence of a fixed price, when in fact the contract contained no such guarantee. This error led the people's representatives and citizens to evaluate the decision on inaccurate grounds. The MC emphasizes that the federal authority should not have proceeded from a presumption lacking contractual basis.

…

Operational details

Transparency in Federal Decision-Making and Parliamentary Oversight

The CdG report highlights an essential issue for Switzerland's democratic functioning: Parliament's role in overseeing the executive and the quality of information provided to the people's representatives. When the Federal Council or a department communicate with 'absolute certainty' about facts lacking contractual support, a breach is created between what is claimed and the underlying reality. This practice is particularly serious in cases involving significant public spending.

In the F-35A file, the DDPS repeatedly stated publicly that the price was 'fixed', constructing a political argument based on a false premise. Parliament thus made a decision based on imprecise information, betraying the transparency principle that characterizes Swiss direct democracy. A citizen's right to truthful information is a foundation of popular sovereignty.

Procedural Problems in Federal Negotiations

The management of F-35A negotiations reveals broader procedural defects in the Confederation's decision-making system. The exclusion of armasuisse's internal legal service in favor of an external firm created fragmentation in the legal verification process. In a specialized procurement center, the internal legal team represents the guardian of contractual and regulatory compliance. Reliance on an external consultant, however competent, does not guarantee the same level of accountability and continuity.

The delay of seven to eight months in communicating the first indications of additional costs to the Federal Council had concrete consequences:

…

Key points

The meaning of the report for the future of federal negotiations

The CAG report represents a formal investigation into federal procedures and a concrete opportunity to correct decision-making processes. The Federal Council will have to respond to the Commission's criticism and adopt corrective measures to prevent similar situations from recurring in future important negotiations.

The role of the Commission for Administration — present in both the Chamber of Deputies (National Council) and the Senate (Council of States) — is precisely to oversee the executive, verify that the information provided to Parliament is complete and correct, and supervise public spending management. In the case of F-35A, the Commission identified critical gaps in communication, legal verification, and information timelines. This report sets a precedent for future investigations into federal negotiations of similar magnitude.

Access to documents and right to administrative information

Swiss citizens have the right to consult federal documents relating to decisions made by the Federal Council and departments. In the case of F-35A negotiations, anyone interested can request copies of documents from the DDPS or the Federal Council following the federal administrative procedures established for access to information.

A concrete first step is to verify whether the full CAG report is available on the official website of the Swiss Parliament (parlament.ch). The report contains detailed findings that provide a factual basis for understanding what went wrong in the negotiations and how the Federal Council communicated with Parliament. This right of access is essential for maintaining transparency and trust in federal institutions.

…

Frequently Asked Questions

What has the Management Commission determined about the F-35A negotiations?: The Management Commission of the National Council concluded that no fixed price was contractually agreed with the US, despite the DDPS and Viola Amherd publicly stating the existence of a fixed price. The judgment is severe: the negotiations were conducted in an 'inadequate' manner. The greatest criticality concerns the gap between public statements and actual contractual facts.
Why have few people read the full contract?: DDPS entrusted the law firm to an external firm (Homburger), excluding Armasuisse's internal legal service from the negotiations. This choice created fragmentation in the legal verification process and prevented the result from being sufficiently verified before public communication. Only a few people involved have read the entire contract.
What was the timing of the delay in communicating to the federal government?: The first hints of possible additional costs had been received by armasuisse as early as August 2024, and Viola Amherd had been informed. However, he communicated to colleagues in the Federal Council only in March 2025, a delay of about 7-8 months. The information came two months after he announced his resignation, preventing a timely discussion within the government.
What are the procedural consequences identified by the Commission?: The CoG identified critical gaps in communication, legal verification and reporting times. The exclusion of Armasuisse's internal legal team has compromised responsibility and continuity. The 7-8 month delay prevented the government from timely assessing the budgetary implications and instructing negotiators clearly. These procedural errors violate the principles of transparency of Swiss direct democracy.
What does this report mean for future federal negotiations?: The CoG report represents an opportunity to correct decision-making processes. The lessons indicated include: documenting every phase of the negotiation, fully involving internal legal teams, communicating risks without delay, checking every assumption before public communications, ensuring full access to documents. These principles will need to guide large future federal government purchases.