Digital Sovereignty Approved – What Now?
clarus.news | Analysis | June 11, 2026
On June 9, 2026, the Council of States adopted the Z'graggen motion for an "impulse program to strengthen digital sovereignty" by 30 votes to 7 – against the will of the Federal Council. This is politically remarkable. In practical terms, however, no cloud contract has been terminated, no US provider replaced, and no architecture made more sovereign.
A Signal Against the Federal Council's Placebo
Federal President Guy Parmelin recommended rejection. Much was already underway, support instruments existed, and money was tight. The Council of States was not convinced by this mixture of activity report and austerity argument.
The Parliamentary Group for Digital Sustainability, Parldigi, played a significant role. Its core team from SP to SVP campaigned unanimously for the motion. After 17 years of persistent work, this is a success and a rare sign of political unity.
Martin Andenmatten summed up the task in Netzwoche: "There is no sovereign technology. There are only sovereign decisions." This is exactly what the federal government must now be measured against.
SGC: Sovereign in Title, Dependent in Architecture
The Swiss Government Cloud is intended to become the cloud foundation of the federal government by 2032. According to current plans, however, around 68 percent of usage will run through foreign hyperscalers. Only 22 percent falls to federally-owned data centers, with another 10 percent to Public Cloud on Premise.
In September 2025, the Federal Chancellery also extended framework agreements with AWS, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, and Alibaba by five years through direct award. This sounds less like disentanglement and more like dependency with an extension option.
NDP: Protected in the Bunker, Dependent on Licensing Models
The Army's New Digitalization Platform is set to launch on July 1, 2026, in protected data centers. It is secured against cyber attacks, power outages, and physical attacks. However, its central virtualization comes from Broadcom/VMware.
Thus, the "operationally autonomous" platform depends on a US corporation for a critical technology layer – one that has changed licensing models, increased prices, and cut partner programs. The bunker apparently protects against many things – just not the next price list.
The Federal Audit Office also criticized insufficient resources and inadequate overall governance. The Council of States' approval changes nothing about this for now.
Health Data: A Sovereign Decision Is Still Possible
For the electronic patient record, Digisanté, and the Swiss Health Data Space, central hosting and architecture questions remain open. Particularly for health data, clear specifications, responsibilities, and exit options are needed.
However, the motion creates no binding hosting requirement, no budget, and no timeline. It generates political pressure. Whether sovereignty emerges from this will only be decided during procurement.
Three Questions for the Federal Government
Regarding SGC: How does a hyperscaler quota of around 68 percent fit with claimed digital sovereignty?
Regarding NDP: What contractually and technically secured exit option exists for Broadcom/VMware?
Regarding Digisanté and EPD: Who decides by when and with what budget on sovereign hosting of health data?
Conclusion
The Council of States has sent an important signal. But a political yes is not yet technical or economic independence.
As long as the SGC relies primarily on foreign hyperscalers, the NDP builds on US virtualization, and the hosting question for health data remains open, digital sovereignty is primarily a well-formulated intention.
What is now needed are responsible parties, deadlines, budgets, and exit plans. The Council of States has pressed the start button. Now the federal government would just need to stop keeping the cable plugged in in the USA.