Swiss army rejected Palantir approaches five times

The Swiss army turned down Palantir five times, according to an investigation by online magazine Republik and research collective WAV. The findings put data sovereignty at the centre of a debate over whether Switzerland should use a US company’s software to analyse sensitive information.

The army’s decisions came after experts considered possible cooperation with Palantir in recent years. In three of the five cases, concerns about control over data led to rejection, journalist Balz Oertli told Swiss public broadcaster RSI. He said the specialists did not trust the company enough.

Palantir sells data-analysis and artificial-intelligence tools to governments, armed forces and intelligence agencies. Its systems are designed to process large volumes of information quickly, including for tasks such as preventing terrorist attacks and identifying military targets. The company has become a prominent supplier to public authorities, while also attracting controversy over its work and influence.

The Swiss army’s repeated refusals do not amount to a national ban. The Federal Department of Defence, led by Martin Pfister, has not made a fundamental decision ruling out cooperation. The findings instead bring a practical question into sharper focus: who controls confidential information when military institutions rely on private technology?

Data control was a deciding issue in three cases. Oertli told RSI that the investigation identified five contacts between Swiss army experts and Palantir, as well as the reasons the proposed cooperation was rejected. In three instances, the concern was a lack of control over the data.

For military specialists, the issue was sovereignty over confidential information. That concern matters when software handles sensitive data for tasks that may affect defence planning or security operations. The investigation does not describe the systems as having been deployed by the Swiss army. Its findings concern approaches and potential cooperation that the army declined.

Oertli’s account points to a distinction between the capabilities offered by a technology supplier and the conditions under which a government can use them. Palantir promotes tools that can rapidly process large amounts of information and support decisions in complex settings, including on the battlefield. Army experts, according to the investigation, were not persuaded that the data would remain under sufficient control.

The other two rejections form part of the five refusals, but the investigation’s quoted account specifically identifies data control as the reason in three cases. Taken together, the decisions show that questions about access and oversight weighed directly on Swiss military assessments.

Palantir’s business reaches far beyond Switzerland. The European investigation involving Republik and WAV reported a contract volume of €1.44 billion for the company across Europe. Palantir’s total revenue was put at approximately €4 billion, with most of it generated in the United States.

The company supplies software to governments, armed forces and intelligence agencies in different countries. Its products include tools aimed at preventing terrorist attacks and identifying military targets. Palantir says its artificial-intelligence model can process large quantities of information rapidly and provide real-time solutions to complex, sensitive problems.

Oertli said Switzerland would have been an attractive customer. He pointed to the country’s neutrality, its position outside NATO and an army comparable in size to those of other potential clients. The repeated refusals therefore matter commercially as well as politically: a prospective customer with those characteristics declined to work with the company on every occasion identified by the investigation.

Palantir’s presence in the Swiss debate has also drawn attention to its wider activities. Swissinfo previously reported that the Foreign Ministry had the company in its sights because of its controversial role in Gaza. The army’s decisions add another strand to scrutiny of how the firm’s services fit with Swiss institutions and their responsibilities.