The Nature of the Conflict
The relationship between Washington and Bern has never been one of genuine partnership. It has been a relationship of domination—a contest in which the stronger actor seeks to bend the weaker to its will. The appearance of friendship—the diplomatic courtesies, the economic cooperation, the invocation of shared values—has concealed a fundamental antagonism: the American drive to eliminate Swiss independence and the Swiss struggle to preserve it.
This conflict has not been waged with armies and battles; it has been conducted through financial coercion, legal pressure, and political manipulation. Yet it remains what Clausewitz would recognize as war: an act of force to compel an adversary to do one’s will. The instruments have been economic rather than kinetic, legal rather than military, but the objective has been constant—to transform Switzerland from an independent actor into a subordinate instrument.
Henry Kissinger understood the nature of American friendship with devastating clarity: “To be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be its friend is fatal.” This aphorism illuminates the essential character of the American-Swiss relationship. Switzerland has never been America’s adversary—it has been America’s “friend.”
That friendship has proven fatal to Swiss banking secrecy, to Swiss neutrality, to Swiss self-determination. The United States has employed the pretense of partnership to subordinate Switzerland, to dismantle its financial autonomy, to compromise its neutrality, and to transform it into a mechanism for American objectives.
Switzerland is constituted by its sovereignty—the capacity to determine its own foreign policy, to maintain its own neutrality, to protect its own interests. This sovereignty is not merely a legal status; it is an existential condition. It is the core of Swiss identity, the foundation of Swiss existence.
Sovereignty, in the Westphalian tradition, is the supreme authority of the state within its territory—the right to determine one’s own laws, one’s own policies, one’s own destiny. This principle is the foundation of the international system: each state is supreme within its own borders, and no external actor can legitimately intervene in its internal affairs. Swiss sovereignty was recognized at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which confirmed Swiss independence from the Holy Roman Empire. Since that recognition, Switzerland has maintained its sovereignty through armed neutrality, diplomatic skill, and financial acumen. The Swiss have never been conquered, never been subordinated, never been absorbed into a larger empire. Their sovereignty is their identity.
Swiss neutrality is an expression of this sovereignty.
It is the policy of remaining outside the conflicts of other nations, of maintaining independence from competing blocs, of serving as neutral ground for diplomacy and finance. Neutrality is not passivity; it is a strategic choice—the choice to remain independent in a world of contending forces. This neutrality has been the foundation of Swiss survival for centuries.
It has allowed Switzerland to avoid the wars that devastated Europe, to prosper through trade and finance, to serve as a haven for capital and a mediator of conflicts. Neutrality is not merely a policy; it is a way of being in the world. Swiss independence is the capacity to determine one’s own foreign policy—to decide who to trade with, who to align with, who to serve. Independence is the essence of sovereignty—the right to choose.
The American campaign against Switzerland has been a campaign against this capacity for independent choice. The demand for financial transparency, the pressure for information exchange, the threat of sanctions—these have been attempts to eliminate Swiss independence, to force Switzerland to serve American interests, to transform Switzerland from an independent actor into a subordinate instrument.
The United States, for its part, has been defined by its hegemonic position in the international system. This dominance is not merely a political status; it is an existential condition. It is the essence of American identity, the foundation of American existence.
Hegemony, in the Gramscian tradition, is the dominance of one actor over others—not merely through force, but through the construction of consent. The hegemon establishes the rules of the system, defines the norms of behavior, and shapes the preferences of other actors.
Hegemony is the ability to make one’s own interests appear as the universal interest. American hegemony has been the foundation of the post-World War II international order. The United States established the rules of the global economy, defined the norms of international behavior, and shaped the preferences of other states. The dollar’s supremacy, the NATO alliance, the Bretton Woods institutions—these have been expressions of American hegemony.
Nietzsche identified the will to dominate as a fundamental drive of human existence—the drive to assert one’s own authority, to dominate others, to shape the world according to one’s own will. The American will to dominate is the drive to maintain American hegemony, to preserve American preeminence, to prevent the rise of any challenger.
This drive is expressed in the Wolfowitz Doctrine—the declaration that the United States will prevent the emergence of any rival. The doctrine is not merely a policy; it is an ontological statement—a declaration of the will to dominate, a commitment to permanent hegemony.
This drive is fundamentally hostile to independence. The hegemon cannot tolerate independent actors—states that pursue their own interests, that chart their own course, that resist the hegemon’s will. Independence is a threat to hegemony, a challenge to dominance, a rejection of the hegemon’s authority.
This intolerance of independence is the root of the conflict with Switzerland. Switzerland is an independent actor—a state that pursues its own interests, that charts its own course, that resists American will. This independence is intolerable to the American hegemon, and it must be eliminated.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine and Its Implications
The Wolfowitz Doctrine emerged from the strategic review conducted by the Pentagon in the aftermath of the Cold War. The doctrine, named after Paul Wolfowitz, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, articulated the American strategy for maintaining dominance in the post-Cold War world.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 left the United States as the sole superpower—the unchallenged hegemon in a unipolar world. The strategic question was: how to maintain this dominance? How to prevent the emergence of challengers? How to preserve American preeminence indefinitely?
The Wolfowitz Doctrine was the answer.
Drafted in 1992 and leaked to the press, the doctrine articulated a strategy of permanent hegemony—a commitment to preventing the emergence of any rival, to maintaining American military supremacy, to shaping the international order according to American interests.
The doctrine articulated several core principles:
- The Prevention of Rivals: The United States must prevent the emergence of any actor that could challenge American dominance. This includes not only hostile states but also friendly states that might develop the capability to challenge American interests.
- The Maintenance of Military Supremacy: The United States must maintain military supremacy sufficient to deter any potential challenger. This requires continued investment in military capabilities, forward deployment of forces, and the willingness to use force when necessary.
- The Shaping of the International Order: The United States must shape the international order according to American interests and values. This includes the promotion of democracy, the expansion of free markets, and the establishment of international institutions that serve American purposes.
- The Prevention of Independent Foreign Policies: The United States must prevent the emergence of states that pursue independent foreign policies—policies that are not aligned with American interests. This is the most radical principle of the doctrine, and it has the most profound implications.
This final principle amounts to a declaration of war against the world.
It declares that any state that pursues its own interests, that charts its own course, that resists American will is a threat to American hegemony and must be subordinated. The principle is not limited to hostile states; it includes friendly states, allied states, neutral states—any state that dares to be independent.
Switzerland is the quintessential independent state. Its neutrality, its sovereignty, its financial independence—these are expressions of an independent foreign policy. The Wolfowitz Doctrine declares that this independence must be eliminated.
The doctrine’s logic is the logic of permanent conflict. If the United States must prevent the emergence of any independent actor, then the United States is in a state of permanent conflict with the entire world. The conflict is not always kinetic; it is often economic, political, and cultural. But it is war nonetheless. This logic is the logic of the hegemon. The hegemon cannot rest, cannot relax, cannot tolerate the existence of potential challengers. The hegemon must constantly assert its dominance, constantly suppress independence, constantly wage conflict against the world. The doctrine transforms the relationship between the United States and the world from one of cooperation to one of conflict. The world is not a community of sovereign states; it is a hierarchy of dominance, with the United States at the top and all others subordinate.
The implications for Switzerland are clear. Switzerland is an independent state with an independent foreign policy. It is a neutral state that refuses to align with the American bloc. It is a sovereign state that protects its own interests. The Wolfowitz Doctrine declares that this independence, this neutrality, this sovereignty must be eliminated. The American campaign against Swiss banking secrecy, Swiss neutrality, and Swiss sovereignty is an application of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. It is the attempt to subordinate an independent state, to eliminate its independence, to force it to serve American interests.
It is war.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine has been applied in practice through a variety of mechanisms. The military mechanism is the use of force—or the threat of force—to compel compliance. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have been applications of this mechanism. The military presence in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia serves as a constant reminder of American capability. This is the most visible application of the doctrine. It demonstrates the willingness of the United States to use force to achieve its objectives. It creates fear, and fear compels compliance.
The economic mechanism is the use of economic leverage—sanctions, trade policies, financial regulations—to compel compliance. The sanctions on Iran, Russia, and North Korea have been applications of this mechanism. The FATCA regime, the AML/KYC requirements, and the extraterritorial application of American law are expressions of this approach. This mechanism is the most relevant to Switzerland. The Swiss financial system has been the target of American economic coercion—the threat of dollar exclusion, the pressure for information exchange, the imposition of compliance requirements. The economic mechanism has been the primary instrument of American control over Switzerland.
The political mechanism is the use of diplomatic pressure, political manipulation, and ideological influence to shape the behavior of states. The promotion of democracy, the support for opposition movements, and the cultivation of political elites are expressions of this approach.
This mechanism has been applied to Switzerland through the cultivation of pro-American elites, the promotion of American values, and the pressure for political alignment.
The cultural mechanism is the use of cultural influence—media, education, popular culture—to shape the preferences of populations. The dominance of American media, the influence of American education, and the appeal of American culture are expressions of this approach. This mechanism has been applied to Switzerland through the dominance of American media, the influence of American education, and the appeal of American culture.
The Targeting of Swiss Financial Institutions
The American campaign against Switzerland has focused on Swiss financial institutions—the banks, the wealth managers, the fiduciaries that constitute the Swiss financial system. This targeting is not accidental; it is strategic. The Swiss financial system is the foundation of Swiss independence, and its subordination is essential to the elimination of Swiss sovereignty.
The strategic logic is straightforward. The Swiss financial system is the source of Swiss influence—the economic foundation of Swiss independence. By subordinating the financial system, the United States subordinates Switzerland. This logic is rooted in the nature of Swiss strength. Switzerland is a small state with limited military capability. Its influence is financial—the ability to attract capital, to protect assets, to serve as a haven. The American campaign against this financial strength is a campaign against Swiss independence.
The mechanisms of targeting have been multiple:
- The Prosecution of Banks: The Department of Justice has prosecuted Swiss banks—UBS, Credit Suisse, Julius Baer—for violations of American law. The prosecutions have resulted in massive fines, guilty pleas, and the disclosure of client information.
- The Imposition of Compliance Requirements: The United States has imposed compliance requirements on Swiss banks—FATCA, AML/KYC, sanctions enforcement. These requirements have transformed Swiss banks into instruments of American surveillance.
- The Threat of Dollar Exclusion: The United States has threatened Swiss banks with exclusion from the dollar clearing system. This threat has compelled compliance with American demands.
- The Pressure on Swiss Law: The United States has pressured Switzerland to amend its laws—to dismantle banking secrecy, to permit information exchange, to align with American standards. This pressure has transformed the Swiss legal system.
The elimination of financial independence is the elimination of Swiss independence. Without its financial strength, Switzerland is a small state with no leverage, no influence, no capacity to resist American will. The subordination of the financial system is the subordination of Switzerland.
This campaign has been conducted under the pretense of friendship. The United States has presented itself as Switzerland’s ally, partner, and friend. The rhetoric of partnership is constant. The United States describes Switzerland as a “valued partner,” a “trusted ally,” a “friend.” The diplomatic language is warm, the economic cooperation is celebrated, and the shared values are emphasized. This rhetoric is not sincere; it is strategic. The pretense of partnership serves American interests—it facilitates cooperation, reduces resistance, and masks the true nature of the relationship.
The reality of the relationship is antagonism. The United States has systematically attacked Swiss interests—dismantled banking secrecy, compromised neutrality, subordinated the financial system. These attacks are not the actions of a friend; they are the actions of an adversary. The reality is masked by the rhetoric. The mask is essential to the campaign—it prevents resistance, facilitates subordination, and maintains the illusion of cooperation.
Kissinger’s aphorism captures the paradox: Switzerland has been America’s friend, and that friendship has been fatal to Swiss independence. The United States does not have friends; it has interests. The “friendship” is a tool of subordination, a mechanism of control, a pretense that masks the reality of domination.
The cost of this friendship has been enormous. Switzerland has lost:
- The Loss of Banking Secrecy: The foundation of the Swiss financial system, dismantled under American pressure.
- The Loss of Financial Independence: The Swiss banks, transformed into instruments of American surveillance.
- The Loss of Sovereignty: The Swiss legal system, subordinated to American jurisdiction.
- The Loss of Neutrality: The Swiss neutrality, compromised by alignment with American interests.
The benefit to the United States has been substantial. Switzerland has become:
- An Instrument of Surveillance: The Swiss banks now report to American authorities, providing intelligence on global capital flows.
- An Enforcer of Sanctions: The Swiss banks now enforce American sanctions, freezing assets and blocking transactions.
- A Source of Revenue: The fines and penalties paid by Swiss banks have enriched the American treasury.
- A Demonstration of Dominance: The subordination of Switzerland demonstrates American capability to the world.
Low-Intensity Conflict Against Switzerland
The American war against Switzerland is a low-intensity conflict—waged through non-kinetic means, through economic pressure, legal coercion, and political manipulation. The nature of this warfare is distinct from conventional military conflict, but the objective is identical: to compel the adversary to do one’s will. Low-intensity warfare is the conduct of conflict below the threshold of conventional war. It involves the use of economic, political, informational, and covert means to achieve strategic objectives. It is the warfare of the hegemon—the means through which a dominant state maintains its position without resorting to full-scale military conflict.
The American conflict with Switzerland is low-intensity warfare. The means are economic—the threat of dollar exclusion, the imposition of compliance requirements. The means are legal—the prosecution of banks, the pressure on Swiss law. The means are political—the cultivation of elites, the manipulation of politics. The means are cultural—the Americanization of the Swiss population. The objective is not conquest; it is subordination. The United States does not seek to occupy Switzerland, to annex its territory, to replace its government. The United States seeks to subordinate Switzerland—to eliminate its independence, to control its policies, to use it as an instrument of American objectives.
The conduct of this warfare is subtle and indirect. The attacks are not launched from aircraft carriers or through deep missile strikes; they are launched through legal briefs, regulatory demands, and diplomatic pressure. The battles are not fought on battlefields; they are fought in courtrooms, boardrooms, and negotiating tables. This conduct is designed to avoid triggering a conventional response. The attacks are calibrated to stay below the threshold that would provoke resistance. The objective is to achieve subordination without provoking a fight.
This conflict has been backed by the American military—the ultimate guarantor of American capability. The military does not directly participate, but its existence shapes the conflict. The threats that the United States makes—the threat of dollar exclusion, the threat of prosecution, the threat of sanctions—are credible because the military stands behind them.
The military is the sword that guarantees the covenant. The backing is not direct; it is implicit. The United States does not threaten to invade Switzerland, to bomb its cities, to occupy its territory. The threat is economic and legal. But the economic and legal threats are credible because the military stands behind them.
This backing is now eroding. The Iranian victory in the Middle East and the Russian victory in Ukraine have demonstrated that the American military is not invincible. The erosion of the military backing is undermining the credibility of the economic and legal threats. The low-intensity conflict against Switzerland was sustainable when the American military was supreme. The conflict is becoming unsustainable as the military supremacy erodes.
Switzerland possesses a military dimension to its defense—the armed neutrality that has protected Swiss independence for centuries. The Swiss military is not designed to fight a conventional war against a superpower; it is designed to deter invasion and to make occupation costly. Armed neutrality is the Swiss strategy of maintaining a capable military force while remaining neutral in the conflicts of other nations. The strategy is designed to deter aggression—to make the cost of invasion too high for any potential aggressor.
The Swiss military is a militia force—a citizen army that can be mobilized quickly in the event of invasion. The Swiss terrain—the mountains, the valleys, the fortified positions—is designed to make invasion costly. The Swiss strategy is not to win a war; it is to make war too expensive to wage. This strategy has been historically effective.
Switzerland has not been invaded since the Napoleonic era, despite being surrounded by warring states. Armed neutrality has deterred aggression and preserved independence. The current relevance of armed neutrality is increasing. The erosion of American capability and the rise of other actors are creating a more dangerous world. The Swiss military, while small, provides a measure of security in this dangerous world. Armed neutrality is a symbol of Swiss independence, a demonstration of the will to resist, a statement of the refusal to be subordinated.
The Resolution
The American-Swiss relationship is not a friendship; it is a relationship of domination—a contest in which the stronger actor seeks to subordinate the weaker. The pretense of friendship masks the reality of conflict. The diplomatic language, the economic cooperation, the shared values—these are masks that hide the reality of the relationship.
The United States is not Switzerland’s friend; it is Switzerland’s adversary.
The pretense is not merely deceptive; it is strategic. The pretense of friendship serves American interests—it facilitates subordination, reduces resistance, and maintains the illusion of partnership. The reality is conflict. The United States has systematically attacked Swiss interests—dismantled banking secrecy, compromised neutrality, subordinated the financial system. These attacks are the actions of an adversary, not a friend.
The low-intensity conflict against Switzerland is ending. The erosion of American military capability is undermining the capacity to wage the conflict. The threats are losing their credibility, the coercion is losing its force, and the subordination is becoming unsustainable. The threats that sustained the conflict—the threat of dollar exclusion, the threat of prosecution, the threat of sanctions—are eroding. The alternatives to the dollar system are growing, the credibility of the Department of Justice is declining, and the effectiveness of the sanctions is diminishing. This erosion is undermining the conflict. The conflict was conducted through threats, and the threats are losing their force.
The Kissinger truth remains: Switzerland has been America’s friend, and the friendship has been fatal. But the fatality is ending—the friendship is dissolving, and Switzerland is returning to independence.
The United States is not Switzerland’s friend. It never was.
This is the truth of the American-Swiss relationship: it was never a friendship; it was always a conflict. The conflict is now ending, and Switzerland is returning to its natural state—independent, neutral, and mercenary.
Endnotes
1. Henry Kissinger’s aphorism is widely attributed to the former US Secretary of State, reportedly said privately to William F. Buckley Jr. in November 1968, following the election of Richard Nixon. The quote appears in Buckley’s United Nations Journal: A Delegate’s Odyssey (1974). Economist Jeffrey Sachs cited the aphorism in a 2026 speech at the European Parliament, urging Europe to adopt a “realistic” and independent foreign policy. See News.az, “Jeffrey Sachs at the EP: To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be its friend is fatal,” June 27, 2026; Mythdetector.com, “Henry Kissinger’s Quote About U.S. Friendship Shared Without Context,” June 4, 2025; Barry Popik, “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal,” September 16, 2009.
2. Carl von Clausewitz, On War (1832), Book I, Chapter 1: “War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.” The Prussian military theorist’s definition provides the conceptual framework for understanding economic coercion as a form of warfare. See Australian War Memorial, “Words of War: Defining War and Australian History,” February 2, 2026; Cambridge University Press, Review of International Studies, October 1997.
3. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) formally recognized Swiss independence from the Holy Roman Empire. The treaty contained a special provision endorsing the process begun in 1499, and European powers recognized the Swiss Confederation as an independent state. See Swissinfo.ch, “The ten most important dates in Switzerland’s history,” February 29, 2020; Historical Dictionary of Switzerland (HLS), “Westfälischer Frieden.”
4. The Wolfowitz Doctrine refers to the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance drafted by Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The document declared: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival… we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” The document was leaked to The New York Times in March 1992. See De Gruyter Brill, “Power and world order”; Archive.org, “The Wolfowitz doctrine for global primacy”; GlobalSecurity.org, “Defense Planning Guidance,” December 2, 2003.
5. Article 47 of the Swiss Federal Act on Banks and Savings Banks (Bankengesetz, BankG) of November 8, 1934, criminalized the disclosure of confidential client information. The provision states that anyone who intentionally divulges a secret entrusted to them in their capacity as an organ, employee, or agent of a bank shall be punished by imprisonment of up to three years or a fine. See Swiss Federal Supreme Court, “108 IV 133”; lawbrary.ch, “Bundesgesetz über die Banken und Sparkassen”; justement.ch, “Art. 47 BankG.”
6. The UBS deferred prosecution agreement (February 2009) required UBS to pay $780 million in fines, penalties, interest, and restitution, and to disclose the names of approximately 250 client names initially, with the bank later agreeing to identify up to 4,450 additional accounts. UBS admitted to conspiring to defraud the Internal Revenue Service. See US Department of Justice, “Justice Department & IRS Announce Results of UBS Settlement,” November 17, 2009; *The New York Times*, “UBS to Pay $780 Million to Settle Tax Case,” February 19, 2009.
7. Credit Suisse pleaded guilty in May 2014 to one count of conspiracy to aid tax evasion and agreed to pay approximately $2.6 billion in penalties. It was the first global bank in a decade to admit to a crime in a US courtroom. See Berkeley Law, “Credit Suisse Pleads Guilty to DOJ Charge of Conspiracy to Aid Tax Evasion”; Bloomberg, “Credit Suisse Pleads Guilty, Pays $2.6 Billion in Tax Probe,” May 19, 2014; The New York Times, “Credit Suisse Pleads Guilty in Felony Case,” May 20, 2014.
8. FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act), enacted in 2010, imposes a 30% withholding tax on dividends and certain other payments made to non-US financial institutions that do not comply with its reporting requirements. See Starfighters Space, Inc., Form 1-A POS; AmpliTech Group, Inc., Form 424B5, October 30, 2025.
9. Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony describes political leadership based on the consent of the led, where the ruling class maintains power not merely through force but through the construction of moral and intellectual consensus. The “normal” exercise of hegemony involves a combination of force and consent, where force appears to be backed by the consent of the majority. See Brill, “Hegemonic constituent power”; Cambridge University Press, Global Constitutionalism, January 22, 2024; Taylor & Francis, “Hegemony,” May 30, 2021.
10. Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of the will to power (der Wille zur Macht) holds that all actions are motivated by the desire for power. Nietzsche arrived at this hypothesis between The Gay Science (1882) and Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883), employing Schopenhauer’s terminology to describe the fundamental principle of the universe as “the will to be strong, the will to gain ascendance, the will to dominate and control.” See Cambridge University Press, “Zarathustra,” 2019; Taylor & Francis, “Nietzsche on Leadership: The Power of the Will,” July 28, 2017.
11. Low-intensity conflict (LIC), as defined by the US Department of Defense, is “political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states.” It involves the use of all four elements of national power—political, economic, informational, and military—and frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. See DTIC, “Strategic Level of War”; National Defense University, “Counterinsurgency”; Joint Chiefs of Staff Publication 1-22, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms.
12. Swiss armed neutrality combines a militia-based army with a strategy of territorial defense designed to make invasion prohibitively costly. Neutral states must be able to defend themselves, which explains why Switzerland has always striven to keep its armed forces at a respectable level. Switzerland has not been invaded since the Napoleonic era, despite being surrounded by warring states. See Swissinfo.ch, “Neutrality,” May 14, 2025; Swiss Parliament, “La mission de base de l’armée est inscrite dans la Constitution fédérale,” Article 58.
13. Iran maintains effective missile capabilities and is able to target more than ten American bases and tens of thousands of US troops in the region. In March 2026, Iran fired two intermediate-range ballistic missiles toward the joint US-UK military base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, approximately 2,500 miles from Iran—the longest-ranged missile launch ever attempted by the country. See Reuters, “Iran fires missiles toward US-UK base in Indian Ocean,” March 21, 2026; Stars and Stripes, “Iran missile strike toward Diego Garcia suggests reach far beyond Middle East,” March 21, 2026; Pars Today, “Iran has capacity to strike US military bases,” February 2, 2026.
14. The Russian military campaign in Ukraine has demonstrated the obsolescence of European conventional forces and the hollowing of NATO’s collective defense capabilities. NATO Supreme Commander for Transformation Admiral Pierre Vandieu acknowledged Western organizational failure in the adaptation race, noting that Russian forces underwent “a crash course in adaptation” on the Ukrainian battlefield, restructuring tactics and logistics. European defense industries remain unable to match Russian production capacity, and the alliance’s political cohesion has fractured under the strain. See Topwar.ru, “NATO Admiral confirms Russian military technological superiority,” February 11, 2026; Tercuman, “Putin’s victory: Europe’s darkness?” January 28, 2026.
15. Switzerland is the third-largest asset management hub in Europe, with a record CHF 3.45 trillion (US$4.35 trillion) in assets under management in 2024, representing a 12.3 percent increase. Political stability, legal certainty, and a sound currency are the factors most cited by clients as motivating their choice of Switzerland. See Asset Management Association Switzerland, “Swiss Asset Management Study 2025,” June 3, 2025; Finews.com, “Asset Managers Seek Recipe for Further Growth,” June 12, 2025.
16. The FATCA Model 2 agreement between Switzerland and the United States is non-reciprocal: Swiss financial institutions disclose account details directly to the US tax authority with the consent of the US clients concerned, but no account data is transmitted from the United States to Switzerland. Switzerland signed a Model 1 agreement on June 27, 2024, which provides for automatic and reciprocal exchange of information, with the transition scheduled to take effect in 2028. See Swiss Federal Council, “Federal Council initiates consultation on changing the FATCA model,” July 3, 2025; State Secretariat for International Finance (SIF), “FATCA agreement,” June 29, 2026; Grant Thornton Switzerland, “FATCA Agreement between Switzerland and the USA,” July 17, 2025.