Swiss Senate challenges government plan for defence-funded VAT rise

The government’s proposed 0.5 percentage point VAT rise has run into a clear Senate roadblock. The Security Policy Committee of the Council of States rejected the plan by 8 votes to 3, with one abstention, according to the Parliamentary Services on Thursday, September 10, 2026.

The committee accepts the government’s wider premise: Switzerland needs more room to finance military equipment as the security situation deteriorates. Its members also support creating a defence fund with borrowing powers. Their objection concerns the financing package, particularly the scale of the tax increase that would fall on consumers.

The Senate Finance Committee had already backed a lower VAT increase of 0.2 percentage points. The Security Policy Committee has now aligned itself with that position, giving the alternative model significant weight before the full chamber debates the issue this autumn.

The dispute puts two priorities into direct parliamentary negotiation: increasing defence investment and limiting the burden placed on households and businesses through the consumption tax. The government’s proposal would apply the higher standard rate for 12 years, creating a defined but lengthy financing period for defence projects.

Both Senate committees favour a 0.2 percentage point increase, less than half the government’s proposed rise. The gap is small in percentage terms, but it signals a substantial disagreement over how Switzerland should pay for a larger military effort.

The committees have not rejected defence spending. The Security Policy Committee says the deteriorating security environment makes a fund with borrowing powers necessary to finance equipment for the armed forces. That position preserves the government’s central objective while changing the route to get there.

Under the committees’ approach, VAT would provide only part of the fund’s financing. Ordinary budget surpluses would also contribute, alongside further payments from the federal budget. Some of those contributions would be earmarked for the defence fund, while others would remain non-earmarked.

That structure would spread the cost across several sources of federal money. It would also tie the defence programme more closely to the government’s annual budget position. Surpluses cannot be guaranteed in every year, so the eventual model will have to define how predictable the fund’s income must be when the armed forces commit to long-term equipment purchases.

The committees also want to separate the defence fund from the referendum on the VAT increase. This procedural change could shape the next phase of the debate as much as the proposed rates themselves.

Their position would allow Parliament to establish the fund’s legal framework independently, while voters would decide separately on the tax measure. The source does not specify how the two processes would be sequenced or what would happen to the fund if voters rejected the VAT increase. Those details will remain important as the Senate develops the proposal.

The separation reflects the different political questions involved. Parliament must decide how the armed forces can obtain reliable financing and whether borrowing powers should be available. Voters, under Switzerland’s direct democratic system, may then be asked to approve a higher standard VAT rate.

The Council of States will decide on the matter in autumn 2026. Its debate will determine whether the chamber backs the 0.2 percentage point increase, adopts another financing formula or returns closer to the government’s original plan. The National Council would still have to consider the outcome before Parliament settles the legislation.