Contents
In leadership, communication does not only decide whether others understand. It decides whether others trust. The report of the Control Committee (Geschäftsprüfungskommission, GPK) on the procurement of the F-35 fighter jets, dated 8 September 2026, shows what happens when a central message does not hold and bad news is passed on late. This article is based on the findings of the report. An example of the Quality of Communication.
A message that did not hold
Situation
Switzerland ordered 36 F-35s within a cost framework of 6 billion francs. In public, there was talk of a fixed price. The GPK concludes that a flat fixed price was never agreed with the USA. The costs for 36 jets are now estimated at 7.1 billion francs; within the approved framework, around 30 aircraft are still possible.
Link to the quality
Good communication is simple and true at the same time. “Fixed price” is a simple message. But it needs a foundation that holds even under strain. The simpler the statement, the more carefully it must be checked.
The bad news came late
Situation
According to the report, the then defence minister Viola Amherd had known about possible additional costs since August 2024. She informed the full Federal Council in March 2025, after announcing her resignation.
Link to the quality
Bad news does not get better with time. Those who hold it back deprive their team of the chance to act in time. Part of a leader’s communication is to inform their own body first.
The consequence: lost trust
Situation
Members of parliament from left to right reacted sharply. Several parties said that parliament and the public had been misinformed about the price structure. There are also dissenting voices: National Councillor Reto Nause of the Centre party stated that he had read the contract and that the fixed price is in it; clauses on US inflation triggered the additional costs.
Link to the law
Trust is the solid ground of leadership. When a core statement falls, everything is doubted in hindsight, even what was correct. The debate then no longer revolves around the matter itself but around credibility.
The successor takes on the legacy burden
Situation
Defence Minister Martin Pfister called the report nuanced and factual, and at the same time a heavy burden on his department’s work of building trust. He promised a swift statement from the Federal Council, not only in December, and asked the National Council for a factual discussion. On 15 September, the National Council approved the additional credit of 394 million francs.
Link to the quality
Responsibility means standing up for what you have inherited as well. Pfister acknowledges the finding instead of playing it down. That is the first step towards rebuilding trust.
Transparency remains a daily task
Situation
A few days later, the department refused to tell a newspaper how many lawyers work at the Federal Office for Defence Procurement. This triggered cross-party criticism and several questions for question time.
Link to the quality
After a breach of trust, every piece of information is scrutinised. Those who promise openness must show it in small things too. In this situation, a refused answer weighs more heavily than usual.
Key takeaways
Key lessons
- Check simple messages especially thoroughly. They are repeated most often.
- Pass on bad news early, first to your own body.
- A core statement that has fallen calls everything else into question.
- Take responsibility for what you have inherited as well.
- After a breach of trust, openness in small things counts double.
Summary
The GPK report describes two communication failures: a message without a sound basis and a warning passed on late. The successor shows how coming to terms with it begins, and at the same time how quickly new doubts arise. Trust can be lost through words. It is won back through behaviour.