There are decisions that commit a country for a generation - and others that silently betray it. In the space of just a few weeks, a Federal Councillor who was previously unknown to the general public has achieved the feat of combining a massive tax increase, a deliberate circumvention of the debt brake and a strategic alignment without democratic debate, all in the name of a «defence» that has never been clearly defined. Behind the veneer of security, a shift with far-reaching consequences for Switzerland's sovereignty, neutrality and institutional credibility is at stake. Here's why this budgetary operation is anything but harmless - and why it must be deconstructed point by point.
The AGEFI editorial of 29 January 2026 does more than just point out a budgetary inconsistency. It reveals, almost in spite of itself, a much more serious problem: the arrival at the heart of the Swiss defence system of a Federal Councillor with no strategic roots, no military vision and clearly no respect for the institutional safeguards that underpin the Confederation's credibility.
Because the first major measure taken by Martin Pfister, The DDPS is neither a defence doctrine, nor a reform of the militia army, nor a plan to strengthen strategic autonomy. It is a opaque financial arrangements, worthy of the worst European technocratic reflexes.
A tax increase as an admission of political failure
The figure is stark: +0.8 point of VAT from 2028, or approximately 30 billion francs over ten years levied directly on the population. A VAT that hits households, families, SMEs and basic consumption indiscriminately. In other words: the most regressive tax to finance a department that is supposed to embody the protection of the country.
And the admission is even more chilling. Martin Pfister himself admits that all the options examined were revenue increases. No structural reforms. No prioritisation. No questioning of existing spending. The message is crystal clear: the federal apparatus is untouchable, the citizen is the adjustment variable.
The off-balance sheet fund: sabotaging the debt brake
But the most serious issue is not VAT. It's the special off-budget fund, designed to absorb two-thirds of revenue, or 2 billion per year, with a borrowing capacity of up to 6 billion a year, outside the scope of the debt brake.
This mechanism is not a technical detail. It is a major institutional break. The debt brake is not an accounting rule: it is a contract of trust between the Confederation and the Swiss people, accepted by popular vote.
And now for the ultimate irony, on 20 January 2026, the Federal Council again rejected any exceptions to the debt brake, in particular through the voice of’Albert Rösti, using the army as an example of a possible aberration. A week later, Martin Pfister is doing exactly what was denounced. This is no longer an inconsistency: it's a denial.
Rearmament without sovereignty: the Atlanticist drift
This financial tinkering is part of a clear political trajectory: NATO rapprochement, gradual dilution of neutrality, and silent dismantling of the militia army to a project-based army, dependent on external standards, procurement and chains of command.
You cannot strengthen Swiss defence by financing it through off-balance sheet gimmicks. You don't protect the population by weakening budgetary discipline. And you don't talk about sovereignty by copying the worst recipes of European indebtedness.
A head of the DDPS with no vision, but with the cash register
The AGEFI editorial talks of an ’aberration«. The word is right, but not enough. What this dossier reveals is a head of department who starts by bending the rules before even defining a strategy, which is raising taxes before reforming the military, and which is weakening Switzerland's institutional foundations in the name of imported “security”.
National defence deserves better than an unknown man in a hurry to raise taxes and hide the debt. It demands clarity, consistency and political courage.
Conclusion
By seeking to finance defence through VAT and off-balance sheet funds, Martin Pfister is not strengthening Switzerland's security: it weakens budgetary sovereignty, betrays the spirit of the debt brake and accelerates the country's strategic alignment without democratic debate. An army without a doctrine, financed by an accounting illusion, is not a strong army. It is the symptom of a government that confuses protecting the country with technocratic headlong rush.