Swissmem Package Strategy: When the Army Takes the AHV Along for the Ride
clarus.news | Analysis | May 15, 2026
The industrial association Swissmem wants to bundle the planned VAT increases for army and AHV in a single constitutional proposal – supported by a new legal opinion. The NZZ reveals the maneuver on May 15, 2026. At first glance a procedural question, on second look a classic political lever: Those who want the money for rearmament must also buy the 13th AHV pension – and vice versa. We have already covered the factual background of our reporting in the Source-Article. Here follows the analytical assessment – including the unspoken consequence for Swiss industry itself.
The Maneuver: One Proposal, Two Problems
The plan that NZZ federal correspondent Fabian Schäfer makes public on May 15, 2026, is not new in its mechanics, but new in its sponsorship: For the first time, a national umbrella organization like Swissmem is openly positioning itself for a legally coupled dual proposal. The VAT increase of 0.8 percentage points for security and defense – currently in consultation – and the increase of 0.7 percentage points to finance the 13th AHV pension should be combined in a single constitutional amendment. The electorate could then no longer decide separately on the two concerns, but only on the overall package.
The idea itself has a lead-up. Already in summer 2024, St. Gallen Center councilor Benedikt Würth launched the "Security Percent": 0.4 points for the army, 0.6 points for the AHV – but at that time still with the explicit requirement that the people should continue to be able to vote separately. Würth himself emphasized to the Tages-Anzeiger that the federal government should present two separate decrees that would only be packaged into a joint message. Swissmem's current initiative goes further: It aims for a legally chained proposal – a procedural step that precisely prevents individual voting.
Brupbacher's Strategic Line
Behind the initiative stands Swissmem director Stefan Brupbacher, in office since 2019, former FDP general secretary and general secretary of the economics department under Johann Schneider-Ammann. Brupbacher has also been chair of the European tech industry association Orgalim since 2022 – his voice reaches far beyond Bern.
The linking of AHV financing and industrial policy is no coincidence for Brupbacher, but programmatic. Already in July 2025, he called on members of the National Council's Social Commission in a letter to finance the 13th AHV pension only partially through a temporary VAT increase – otherwise there would be no pressure for fundamental AHV reform including higher retirement age. The line is consistent: Tax instruments are used as levers for reform steps, not primarily as financing technique. With the current combination proposal, the same logic functions in reverse: Those who want army must support AHV – those who want AHV must support army. Both camps should swallow the toad they would otherwise spit out.
Brupbacher has prepared the industrial policy ground with precise words. In the Swissmem TecTalk of August 2025, he described the situation of Swiss armaments suppliers without diplomatic circumlocution: Swiss industry is treated in European procurement procedures like China – with mistrust. The core demand: Relaxation of the War Material Act so that Switzerland is again considered a reliable partner in the European security alliance. The line of argument thus spans from the procedural proposal in Bern to industrial policy towards Brussels – a coherent strategy that extends across multiple policy fields.
STAF 2019 as Model – and as Warning
The historical reference point that the NZZ establishes is the federal proposal on tax reform and AHV financing (STAF) from May 2019. At that time, a corporate tax reform was linked with additional AHV financing – after the isolated Corporate Tax Reform III failed at the ballot box in 2017. The combined proposal won in 2019 with around 66 percent yes votes. The same mechanism could be transferred to the current dossier: What would fail separately should succeed bundled.
But the comparison limps at a crucial point. With STAF there was a substantive connection between the proposal parts: Additional revenue for the AHV as social compensation for the tax relief for companies. With the current proposal, the substantive connection remains thinner. The connection would be purely financial in nature (same tax pot) and political-tactical in nature (mutual hostage-taking of the camps). This touches on the constitutional requirement of unity of subject matter – a principle that should protect voters from "packages" in which unrelated concerns are forcibly coupled. What concrete arguments the legal opinion brought into play by Swissmem is based on is not yet public.
The Unspoken Question: Where Does the Money Flow?
In the entire debate about procedure and constitution, a question shifts to the background that should actually be central for an industrial association like Swissmem: Where do the billions flow once they are collected? The armament fund envisaged by the Federal Council should absorb around 31 billion francs over ten years. A considerable part of this is already earmarked for foreign systems: F-35 from Lockheed Martin, Patriot from Raytheon, Spike guided missiles from Rafael, Skyranger from Rheinmetall (delivery to Switzerland earliest 2032 – produced in Oerlikon).
This is the structural point that is not heard in any Sunday speech: Swiss taxpayers finance a rearmament whose value creation largely occurs abroad. Armaments chief Loher himself has demanded to rebuild the armaments industry domestically. ETH Zurich is considered – with researchers like Roland Siegwart and Auterion founders from the spin-off environment – the "Silicon Valley of robotics." Maxon Motor in Sachseln supplies the drives for every NASA Mars robot. Pilatus in Stans masters the construction of turboprop aircraft at world-class level. Nevertheless, the army procures drone technology predominantly from the USA and Israel.
Here lies the actual contradiction in the Swissmem maneuver. An industrial association that politically secures the tax increase for the army should consequently first demand that these funds flow primarily into domestic value creation – beyond industrial participation (offset) that today lies at two to five percent additional costs. The demand for a relaxation of the War Material Act is one side of the coin; the other would be a binding minimum quota of domestic value creation for armament procurements above a certain level.
The Parliamentary Constellation
The prospects for success of the combination proposal are unclear. The SVP fundamentally rejects VAT increases for the army – faction president Aeschi announced in 2024 that people and cantons would "clearly reject" an increase. The SP in turn has no interest in paving the way for the army budget, but is trapped on AHV financing: The 13th pension was accepted by the people in 2024, the financing is pending. FDP and Center show themselves open, whereby FDP president Burkart emphasized in 2024 that first savings contributions must be made before talking about tax increases.
The consultation period for the 0.8 percent increase in favor of army and civilian security agencies ends at the end of May 2026. Until then, the cards are at least formally on the table separately. Defense Minister Martin Pfister had explicitly emphasized when announcing the proposal in January 2026 that discussions about army and AHV must be conducted separately "for reasons of honesty and transparency." This is exactly the position that Swissmem's proposal wants to undermine.
Conclusion: The Industry's Bet
Swissmem bets with the combination proposal that Switzerland will not pass a pure army proposal at the ballot box. This assumption is not far-fetched – the Sotomo survey from February 2026 showed 76 percent rejection for an isolated VAT increase in favor of the army. The strategic response: hostage-taking of the AHV. Those who want the 13th pension must buy the rearmament with it.
Politically functional, democratically problematic. If procedural tricks are the only way to procure security policy majorities, this says more about the state of the security policy debate than about the ingenuity of industry representatives. The Federal Council had chosen the constitutionally clean path by separating the two dossiers. If this is not capable of gaining a majority, an honest debate about the priorities of the state budget would be the better way out than the legal chaining of unrelated concerns.
France's digital authority DINUM proved in April 2026 that strategic sovereignty is enforceable with binding roadmaps (see our analysis on digital sovereignty). Transferred to the armament dossier: It is not primarily about VAT percentage points, but about the question of whether the additional billions build an industrial and technological base domestically or only cover expenses for foreign systems.
Key Statements
- Swissmem wants to push through a legally coupled dual proposal for AHV and army VAT for the first time as a national umbrella organization.
- Director Stefan Brupbacher pursues a consistent strategy: Tax instruments as reform levers, whether for the AHV or industrial policy.
- The historical comparison with STAF 2019 limps – then there was a substantive connection, now the link would be primarily political-tactical.
- The central unspoken question: What share of the 31 billion francs flows into domestic value creation?
- Defense Minister Pfister explicitly advocated for separate votes when launching the army proposal – Swissmem thus positions itself against the Federal Council's official line.
Critical Questions
Constitutional substance: What concrete arguments regarding the requirement of unity of subject matter does the legal opinion cited by Swissmem provide – and who commissioned and financed it?
Conflicts of interest: If an industrial association politically supports a VAT increase for the army, what guarantees are there that the additional funds actually benefit the Swiss industrial base – and not primarily foreign suppliers?
Effectiveness of coupling: Is there empirical evidence (e.g., from the STAF vote 2019) that voters actually "swallow the toad" with combined proposals – or does the perception of a package strengthen rejection?
Democratic theoretical consequence: If the combination model becomes established: Which future reforms would then also have to be implemented through unrelated couplings because trust in isolated majorities is lacking?
Alternatives: Why don't Swissmem and the Center faction pursue a sequential strategy (first AHV vote 2026, then army vote 2027), where the people can set their priorities in a differentiated way?
Industrial policy coherence: If the tech industry politically supports higher VAT for the army – where remains the parallel demand for binding domestic value creation quotas for armament procurements above a certain threshold?
Source Directory
Primary source:
- Fabian Schäfer: "Is the next 'horse trade' coming? Swissmem wants to link AHV financing with higher taxes for the army" – Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 15.05.2026
Source-Article on clarus.news:
Supplementary sources:
- Federal Council / DDPS: "Temporary VAT increase to strengthen security and defense – Federal Council opens consultation," 06.03.2026
- Federal Council: "Deteriorated threat situation: Temporary VAT increase," press release, 28.01.2026
- Swissmem TecTalk with Stefan Brupbacher: "They want to take away our success," August 2025
- NZZ / Fabian Schäfer: "AHV and Army – Councilors of States plan an 18-billion deal," 12.06.2024
- Tages-Anzeiger: "Finance army and AHV: Will VAT now be increased?" 12.06.2024
- Infosperber: "Now suddenly: The AHV is doing great" (Brupbacher letter July 2025), August 2025
- NZZ: "Game of Drones – and what is the Swiss Army doing?" Background on ETH drone research
- 20 Minutes: "SIG, Rheinmetall etc. – does Switzerland have a problem with its armaments industry?" 03.12.2025
- Watson: "Switzerland wants to develop attack drones" (Loher strategy), 26.07.2024
- Swissmem: "Security and armaments policy" (Position on offset practice)
- Rudolf Strahm: "Value added tax: for 13th AHV or for army?" Handelszeitung, 28.02.2026
Verification status: ✓ 15.05.2026
An honest side note in conclusion: If Switzerland is already raising 31 billion francs in tax money for its security, a growing share of it should remain in the country. ETH and EPFL are considered world leaders in drone and robotics research. Pilatus has been building top-class aircraft for decades. Maxon Motor from Sachseln drives Mars robots. The industrial substance is there – only the political determination is missing to systematically use it for national defense. A "Buy Swiss" clause for armament procurements above a certain threshold would be the logical complement to any VAT increase – and a contribution from Swissmem to coherent industrial policy that would only round out the procedural proposal.
This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-checking: 15.05.2026
Tags: #Swissmem #VAT #AHV #Army #Rearmament #Brupbacher #Schäfer #NZZ #STAF #Defense industry #Pilatus #ETH #Horse trade #Security percent