New fiasco: F-35: Has Trump still played on Switzerland?

Switzerland had to acquire 36 F-35A combat aircraft at a fixed price-but Washington now claims up to up to 1.3 billion francs. In the absence of legal leverage, the government is forced to renegotiate … or pay.

Alert signals had emerged well before signing the contract. As early as May 2022, Federal Finance Control (CDF) noted the lack of legal certainty regarding the fixed price in the acquisition of F-35. The contracts repeatedly evoke “estimated costs”, and a clause even explicitly requires Switzerland to take care of all budget overruns. The Federal Council admitted it bluntly on Wednesday.

The DDPS had however ordered its own legal expertise. The Zurich cabinet Homburger underlined in one of them that it was “essential” that the fixed price was also included in the contract binding the United States to the Lockheed Martin manufacturer. However, at the time, this contract was not yet signed: Switzerland had only a right of gaze, without real power of negotiation.

The American cabinet Arnold & Porter had also warned: it was “not clear” that the declaration of intent to Switzerland would be legally valid in the event of a dispute, the contract providing only a diplomatic outcome. Experties also explicitly stressed that the United States took no financial risk in this type of transaction. In other words, we could have suspected that the alleged fixed price had clay feet.

The Federal Council himself explained on Wednesday. In summer 2024, in informal discussions, American representatives for the first time suggesting that there could be additional costs. At the end of February 2025, an official letter from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) was sent to Switzerland: the Americans explained that it was in their eyes a “misunderstanding” concerning the fixed price. The bomb finally broke out in mid-June 2025 when the United States first indicated a concrete amount for the price supplement-between 650 million and 1.35 billion additional US dollars would be due, justified by high inflation and the increase in the costs of raw materials and energy.

From an American point of view, the promised “fixed price” apparently only concerned the industrial agreement. The Ministry of Defense specified that the final price would only be set once the planes put into production, and that the fixed price mentioned in the contracts focused only on this production order – not on the total cost of the acquisition. In other words, the US “fixed price” corresponded to the internal negotiated amount with Lockheed Martin, while any overtaking could be passed on to buying countries.

The Swiss part, on the other hand, was a matter of the principle that the total acquisition price of approximately 6 billion francs was fixed. There were therefore two different understandings of the contract – a field conducive to current fiasco.

Many indignant voices in Switzerland feel cheated by the United States, because Washington now seems to want to denounce the agreement. Indeed, Swiss negotiators were firmly convinced of having negotiated a fixed and binding agreement.

This conviction was reinforced by the fact that even the American Embassy in Berne publicly confirmed the fixed price – Swiss purchasing officials therefore believed in this commitment.

However, the American government insists that it did not handle, but that the word fixed price was understood differently. From its point of view, only the manufacturer’s price was fixed. Everything that is beyond is now qualified as misunderstanding by the United States.

Did the Americans know from the start that Switzerland was on the wrong track? There is no concrete evidence. The only thing that is clear is that the two parties were talking about a fixed price, but obviously did not mean the same thing – and it is now Switzerland that makes it the price.

Probably because it cannot do otherwise.

The Federal Councilor Pfister immediately admits that Switzerland cannot impose its position: “We are always convinced that there is a fixed price in the contract,” he said on Wednesday. However, the opposing party does not agree – “and the United States is more powerful than Switzerland. You just have to accept it ”.

For the Federal Council, there is no question of interrupting the purchase of a fighting aircraft. Pfister stresses that the F-35 contract is maintained, because the planes are “absolutely necessary from a military point of view”. Otherwise, Switzerland would find itself without adequate protection of its airspace from 2030. In addition, a new acquisition with another jet would take years and would probably be even more expensive.

Nothing, at least according to the Federal Council. Pfister said on Wednesday that there was “no link” between the F-35 agreement and the customs dispute that currently broods with the United States. Nevertheless, observers believe that it is possible that Berne knowingly renounced the confrontation in the dispute on the jets, so as not to weigh on the customs negotiations which take place in parallel.

The DDPS now examines three variants: fewer planes, fewer counter-affairs or additional credit. This last option could lead to a new popular vote – the PS and the Greens are already claiming it.

The Federal Council wants to make a decision by November at the latest. One thing is certain: either the order will be reduced, or taxpayers will have to pay much more.

AI notice: this article was translated from German using artificial intelligence.