The United States is not only competing with Switzerland on tax but is also penalising Swiss exporters through tariffs. Federal President Guy Parmelin recently visited the United States but returned without any tangible results. What happens next?

My hope is that a reasonable outcome will be reached by the end of July. This would not have to be a major new agreement, but rather a robust reaffirmation of the Joint Statement agreed in November 2025. So far, the Americans have complied with the Joint Statement. Switzerland should likewise demonstrate to the United States that it is fulfilling its commitments to the letter, particularly regarding investment — and that these investments would be even higher without tariffs. In return, the United States should reaffirm a maximum tariff rate of 15 percent.

We have four objectives: rules that are as durable as possible in order to provide companies with planning certainty; a tariff level compatible with competitiveness, including the current exemptions; no discrimination relative to competitors from other countries; and protection against future investigations into allegedly unfair practices or national-security concerns.

President Donald Trump will not remain in office forever. Could Switzerland not simply wait the problem out?

That strategy will not work. Companies are losing customers and expertise. Section 122, on which the tariffs currently in force are based, will expire on 24 July. Switzerland would then return to the regime that applied before Liberation Day.

Would that not be excellent news for Switzerland?

Yes, but we all know that this will not happen. Further investigations involving Switzerland are currently under way. In the best-case scenario, we will return to a maximum tariff rate of 15 percent.

«In the end, what matters is what Trump wants and how he perceives Switzerland.» 

As a former trade diplomat, how do you view the United States’ current negotiating approach?

It is not completely different from the past. The difference is that Trump is exploiting his position as the ultimate decision-maker, which gives him extraordinary power. Switzerland can negotiate whatever it wants with the US authorities, but in the end, what also matters is what he wants and how he perceives Switzerland.

What role is Amcham playing in this dispute?

We advise our members, for example on tariff refunds, and I regularly prepare assessments that are as fact-based as possible. We also proposed making investment a central element of the Joint Statement and compiled the list of more than USD 200 billion in investment. In addition, we are involved in exporting the Swiss apprenticeship model to the United States and conduct image-building campaigns.

Have you ever regretted leaving the federal administration for Amcham?

No. I was very satisfied before, and I am probably even more satisfied today. I now have greater freedom to act because I work across a broad range of issues and, of course, because I am no longer a federal employee. The work is highly demanding. My thorough understanding of the United States, its authorities, its negotiating style and its culture, gained through my previous role and family connections, is naturally a considerable advantage.

«To someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Trump uses tariffs for national security, immigration policy, reindustrialization and the budget deficit.»

In the past, disputes with the United States always placed the banking sector in the spotlight. Today, however, the focus is on the real economy..

Yes, this is an evolutionary process. Today, tariffs on the real economy are being used to pursue a wide range of policy objectives. As I often say, to someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Trump uses tariffs, or access to the US market, as an instrument of national security — for example in pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, steel and aluminium — as well as for immigration policy involving Mexico, reindustrialisation and the budget deficit. Unfortunately, the companies now particularly affected are industrial SMEs, which, unlike large corporations, do not manufacture in the United States.

Would Switzerland now be in a stronger position had it not reduced its tariffs on foreign industrial goods to almost zero in recent years?

Switzerland reduced these tariffs because doing so makes economic sense for an open economy. It lowers the price of imported industrial goods for the domestic economy. Naturally, Switzerland could have offered the United States more concessions if industrial tariffs had not already been reduced to zero. Even before the Joint Statement, 99.3 per cent of imports from the United States entered Switzerland tariff-free.

The Joint Statement increases that figure to 99.7 per cent. This is why the other advantages Switzerland can offer, particularly investment, are so important. Switzerland ranks sixth worldwide as a source of foreign direct investment in the United States and first in terms of research and development expenditure. The United States could hardly wish for a better partner.