Italy rejects changes to the WHO Emergency Regulations, like the US: "They're too restrictive."

In a letter dated July 18 to WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus , Health Minister Orazio Schillaci communicated Italy's rejection of the 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations, adopted at the 77th World Health Assembly. The amendments move toward a legally binding framework for responding to public health emergencies. "Pursuant to Article 61 of the International Health Regulations (2005), I hereby notify you of Italy's rejection of all the amendments adopted," the letter reads. Italy thus aligns itself with the US position: the Trump administration has also rejected the amendments, emphasizing that the changes risk "unjustifiably" interfering with the national sovereign right to develop health policies.

“I am writing to you,” reads the letter sent by Minister Schillaci to the Director-General of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, “with reference to your communication of 19 September 2024 on the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2025) adopted by the 77th World Health Assembly with resolution no. WHA77.17. As indicated by paragraph 3 of Article 55 and paragraph 2 of Article 59 of the International Health Regulations (2005), these amendments will enter into force 12 months after the aforementioned communication, i.e. on 19 September 2025, except for those Parties that have notified the Director-General of the World Health Organization of their decision to reject or make reservations with respect to the aforementioned amendments.” Therefore, it reads, "pursuant to Article 61 of the International Health Regulations (2005), I hereby notify you of Italy's rejection of all amendments adopted by the 77th World Health Assembly with resolution WHA77.17." At the 77th World Health Assembly, which took place from 27 May to 1 June 2024 in Geneva, member countries adopted amendments to the International Health Regulations, a legally binding framework for responding to public health emergencies, to introduce the concept of "pandemic emergency" and "greater solidarity and equity."

"We have long raised concerns and concerns about these amendments to the 2005 health regulation. These changes would have led to a reduction in national sovereignty over health policies, including the WHO's ability to exercise control over health information. Moreover, these changes would have been introduced without any parliamentary debate. This decision, also supported by other countries such as the United States, does not entail any changes to health security, which will always be guaranteed with the utmost rigor, as well as coordination with other nations. The Meloni government has once again confirmed that our political action is guided by the national interest and the interests of Italians," immediately commented Galeazzo Bignami, leader of the Brothers of Italy group of deputies. Democratic Party MP Ilenia Malavasi rejected Schillaci's initiative: "With the rejection of the amendments to the WHO's International Health Regulations, officially announced by Minister Schillaci, the Meloni government is taking an irresponsible and dangerous step to follow the reckless Trump administration. This is a serious gesture; an act of shortsighted and ideological closure, which distances us from our European partners and aligns us with denialist and populist positions that have nothing to do with protecting public health. We are distancing ourselves from the international community, abandoning a shared legal framework for addressing global health emergencies. It's like saying that Italy, alone, knows and can do better than the WHO and the international scientific community. This is a resounding mistake."

As mentioned, the United States has formally rejected a series of amendments adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) aimed at strengthening global pandemic preparedness. The amendments, approved unanimously last year, aim to improve international coordination following the chaotic response to COVID-19. However, US officials have argued that the new rules give the WHO excessive power to shape global responses and are based on vague language. These changes, Washington argues, prioritize political concerns such as solidarity over rapid and effective action. The approved amendments introduce a new "pandemic emergency" category for the most significant and dangerous global health crises, in an effort to strengthen global defenses against emerging pathogens. They also call for greater equity in access to vaccines, drugs, and medical supplies.