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

By Redazione Frontaliere Ticino (AI-generated text) · 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.

Who read the contract?

An even more disturbing aspect emerges from the report: 'only a few of the people involved read the entire contract'. This means that the result of the negotiations was subjected to insufficient verification before being publicly communicated. It is incomprehensible how the DDPS and Amherd continued to defend the fixed price before Parliament when the document itself did not support it.

The organization of the negotiations itself presented critical gaps. The DDPS entrusted the legal study to an external law firm, Homburger, assigning it alongside the armasuisse arms office. This choice meant that armasuisse's internal legal service remained 'de facto' excluded from contract negotiations. This contradicts the legal mandate of the office, which by definition is the Confederation's specialized procurement center in the field of armaments.

The delay in communicating to the federal government

A critical element concerns the timing of information to the Federal Council. The first signs of possible additional costs had been received by armasuisse as early as August 2024, and Amherd had been informed of these signals. However, she informed her government colleagues only in March 2025, a delay of approximately seven to eight months. At that point, the United States had confirmed in writing the existence of additional costs.

Even more significant is the timing chosen for the disclosure: two months after the announcement of her resignation and shortly before her departure from the federal government. This timing prevented timely discussion within the government on the issue and raised questions about the transparency of crisis management. The MC considers this behavior 'inadequate'.

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:

The government was unable to promptly assess the implications for the federal budget
It was not possible to discuss the issue with Parliament before public communications
Negotiations with the United States did not benefit from clear instructions from the government in a timely manner

Amherd, as defense minister, had the obligation to inform the government and the department immediately after being warned in August 2024. The delay until March 2025 represents a serious anomaly in the internal information flow.

The Impact on Federal Public Spending

The acquisition of F-35A fighter jets is one of the Confederation's most costly defense projects. Decisions in this regard must rest on solid factual grounds and be communicated with precision to the people's representatives. Erring in the communication of the price — presenting it as 'fixed' when it was actually subject to variability — has direct implications for the federal budget and the allocation of public resources.

Parliament, in federal budget proceedings (managed by the Federal Council and approved by the chambers), must have access to correct information to allocate resources according to the Confederation's priorities. Imprecise communication about spending deviates the decision-making process and reduces the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight. The CdG report highlights how even in Switzerland, where controls are generally rigorous, significant procedural gaps can occur when internal oversight bodies do not function adequately.

Recommended tools

For an updated estimate, use the net salary calculator and the CHF-EUR exchange comparator.

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.

The lessons for the federal budget and future procedures

Parliament (National Council and Council of States) approves the federal budget annually and decides to allocate funds for major projects such as the acquisition of F-35A. Before such massive spending decisions, Parliament must receive correct and complete information from the Federal Council. The CAG report serves as a lesson on the need for more rigorous procedures.

The principles that should guide future federal negotiations, according to the Commission's findings, are:

Accurately document every phase of the negotiation from the start
Fully involve internal legal teams of the competent office
Communicate risks and changes to the federal government without delays
Verify and validate every contractual assumption before public communications
Ensure that all people involved have full access to documents

If you wish to deepen your understanding of how decisions and federal spending affect Swiss national taxation and your contribution to the public budget, you will find useful tools to understand the tax system and how your federal taxes fund the services and projects of the Confederation.

Source: tio.ch

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.