The question being asked in Bern this afternoon is not whether the F-35 procurement went wrong. That is settled. It is whether anyone will personally pay for it.
A day after the oversight committee reported that Switzerland never had a fixed price for its F-35As, the argument has moved from what happened to what follows — and specifically to whether former defence minister Viola Amherd could be held personally liable. Amherd herself has said nothing. She is in Oslo, representing Switzerland at the funeral of Norway’s King Harald V.
Quick Facts
The report: 95 pages, published 8 September 2026 by the National Council’s oversight committee, the GPK-N
Who read the contract: Exactly one person involved — the project manager. Amherd read only extracts
Verdict on her leadership: “Ungenügend” — inadequate. Supervisory and steering duties not sufficiently exercised
Earliest warning: The federal audit office questioned the fixed price four years ago
The eight-month gap: When Washington flagged extra costs in 2024, the full Federal Council was told eight months later
Liability push: SVP National Councillor Rémy Wyssmann wants the limitation period interrupted now
Federal Council position (Nov 2025): No sufficiently concrete indications of damage or unlawful conduct — but it would act if that changed
Next: The National Council votes next week on the supplementary credit
Still unknown: Switzerland knows the price of only the first eight aircraft
One person read it
The detail that has done the most damage is small and very hard to argue with. Of everyone involved in negotiating the largest arms deal in Swiss history, exactly one — the responsible project manager — read the finished contract in full. Amherd read extracts.
The committee also found that instead of relying on armasuisse’s own legal service, Amherd in particular pushed to bring in an external law firm. That firm then recommended engaging American lawyers as well, since it could not assess the documents under US law. That recommendation was acted on only late. And the filing of documents, in certain cases, was anything but cleanly maintained.
The warning that came four years early
Meier’s account adds the part that is hardest to defend. The federal audit office had already questioned the fixed price four years ago. Rather than going back to Washington to renegotiate, Amherd disputed the auditors’ conclusions. And when the United States itself pointed to looming extra costs in 2024, she waited eight months before telling the full Federal Council — doing so only after she had announced her resignation.
His reading of why is not that anyone set out to deceive. It is that after a referendum won by 8,670 votes, the department wanted the fixed price so badly that it could not see the negotiations and the contracts were not delivering one.
Could she actually be made to pay?
SVP National Councillor Rémy Wyssmann, a lawyer, filed a motion a year ago asking the Federal Council to take all measures to stop liability claims against Amherd and the responsible officials from becoming time-barred. The Federal Council recommended rejecting it in November 2025, saying there were then neither sufficiently concrete indications of damage nor of unlawful conduct by federal employees or by the former minister — while promising that if such indications appeared, it would of course take legal steps, including measures to prevent claims expiring.
Wyssmann now says those indications have arrived, and wants the clock stopped.
Why liability is nonetheless unlikely
Two things cut against it, and both are worth stating plainly. First, the oversight committee says it found no indications of deliberate deception — it raises the question of whether those closely involved simply accepted the ambiguity, then says explicitly it has no evidence of intent. Second, and more decisively: if Switzerland ends up buying fewer aircraft for the same money, it is difficult to show the Confederation suffered a financial loss at all. No demonstrable damage, no liability. Any assessment would in any case have to wait until the purchase is complete.
Responsibility for any legal step against a former Federal Councillor would fall to the full Federal Council under the ordinance to the Government Liability Act. For the officials involved, it would fall to the defence department — which said on Wednesday only that it had taken note of the report and that the Federal Council would comment in the usual way.
Background on how the Swiss F-35 cost dispute developed, and what it means for other European buyers.
Next week the money comes back to Parliament
None of this stops the programme. The Federal Council wants 30 aircraft rather than 36, and because of inflation even that needs more money. The National Council decides next week, with security politicians from the FDP and SVP pushing to raise the supplementary amount far enough to restore the full 36.
And underneath the whole argument sits the fact that has not changed all week: Switzerland still only knows what the first eight jets cost. The price of the rest depends on contracts the US government has yet to negotiate with its own manufacturers.
Which is, in the end, what a fixed price was supposed to prevent.
Frequently Asked Questions
Could Viola Amherd be held personally liable for the F-35 costs?
It is being seriously discussed but remains unlikely. SVP National Councillor Rémy Wyssmann wants the limitation period on any liability claims interrupted immediately. However, the oversight committee found no indications of deliberate deception, and if Switzerland buys fewer aircraft for the same money it is hard to demonstrate that the Confederation suffered a financial loss — and without demonstrable damage there is no liability. Responsibility for any legal step against a former Federal Councillor would lie with the full Federal Council.
How many people actually read the F-35 contract?
One. According to the GPK-N report, only the responsible project manager read the negotiated contract in full. Viola Amherd, then defence minister, read only extracts — in what was the largest arms procurement in Swiss history.
When was the fixed price first questioned?
Four years ago, by the federal audit office. Rather than seeking renegotiation with the United States, Amherd disputed the auditors’ conclusions. When the US itself flagged looming extra costs in 2024, she waited eight months before informing the full Federal Council, doing so only after announcing her resignation.
What did the Federal Council say about liability claims?
In November 2025, responding to Wyssmann’s motion, it said there were then neither sufficiently concrete indications of the existence of damage nor of unlawful conduct by federal employees or by former Federal Councillor Viola Amherd. It added that should such indications emerge later, the competent authorities would of course initiate or at least examine legal steps, including measures to prevent claims becoming time-barred.
Did the defence department deliberately mislead the public?
The oversight committee raises the question — asking whether closely involved people effectively accepted the existing ambiguity — but states on enquiry that it has no indications of deliberate deception. Observers have noted the committee is strikingly cautious in assessing motives.
What happens next with the Swiss F-35 purchase?
The Federal Council wants 30 aircraft instead of 36, and inflation means even that requires additional funding. The National Council votes on the supplementary credit next week, with FDP and SVP security politicians pushing to increase it enough for 36 jets. Switzerland currently knows the price only of the first eight aircraft.
Sources: Geschäftsprüfungskommission des Nationalrats report of 8 September 2026; SRF, including analysis by Federal Palace correspondent Dominik Meier; Blick.
0 Comments