- Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini announced a bill to withdraw Italy from the World Health Organization (WHO), echoing U.S. President Donald Trump’s similar move.
- The proposal seeks to redirect Italy’s annual €100 million ($103.87 million) contribution to the WHO toward domestic healthcare.
- Critics of the bill, such as renowned scientist Elena Cattaneo, argue that it is motivated by “scientific nationalism” and could hinder global health efforts.
- The potential withdrawal of Italy and the recent U.S. departure from the WHO could significantly destabilize the organization and threaten its ability to address global health emergencies.
- The move is seen as a broader shift towards reclaiming national sovereignty in public health policy and challenging the dominance of unelected supranational bodies.
(Natural News)—In a bold move echoing the actions of U.S. President Donald Trump, Italy has put forward its desire to withdraw from the globalist World Health Organization (WHO).
Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini announced on Jan. 23 that his Lega party has introduced a bill to withdraw the country from the WHO. The proposal was filed by Sen. Claudio Borghi and Deputy Alberto Bagnai on the same day as Salvini’s announcement. The bill filed by the two Lega lawmakers seeks to repeal Rome’s 1947 legislative decree binding it to the global health body.
“Italy must no longer have to deal with a supranational power center – handsomely financed by Italian taxpayers – which goes hand in hand with the multinationals of the drug,” remarked Salvini, who also serves as Italy’s infrastructure and transportation minister. His comments reflect growing skepticism about the WHO’s role in global health governance and its alignment with multinational pharmaceutical interests.
Salvini emphasized that the €100 million ($103.87 million) Italy contributes annually to the WHO could instead be redirected to support Italian patients, hospitals and doctors. Microbiologist Maria Rita Gismondo expressed agreement with the proposal, stating that Italy’s motivations for pulling out of the WHO are “more than founded and absolutely concrete.”
However, critics of the bill have been quick to voice their opposition – among them Elena Cattaneo, internationally renowned scientist and a senator for life in the Italian parliament. She dismissed the Lega proposal as “scientific nationalism, the safest recipe for crashing into the wall of ignorance and superstition.”
Yet, Cattaneo’s ties to the United Nations – the WHO’s parent organization – raise questions about her impartiality. She has been associated with the UN’s “Not a Woman’s Job?” campaign that promotes gender equality in science, suggesting a potential conflict of interest.
Global health shake-up: U.S. and Italy challenge WHO’s authority
Salvini’s sentiment aligns with Trump’s criticism of the WHO, which he accused of mishandling the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and being unduly influenced by member states like China.
Trump’s executive order to withdraw the U.S. from the WHO, signed shortly after his second-term inauguration, set a precedent for nations questioning the organization’s effectiveness and independence. The U.S. departure, which will take effect after a 12-month notice period, has already forced the WHO to implement cost-cutting measures – including a hiring freeze and travel restrictions. Italy’s potential exit could further destabilize the organization, which relies heavily on contributions from its largest donors. (Related: US departs from the World Health Organization – cutting off a predatory, global oligarchy that has destroyed public health for billions.)
The WHO, a specialized agency of the UN, has long been criticized for its bureaucratic structure and susceptibility to political influence. Trump’s accusations that the organization “ripped off” the U.S. and failed to act independently during the COVID-19 pandemic resonate with those who view the WHO as a tool of globalist agendas. The U.S. withdrawal coupled with Italy’s potential exit signals a broader shift toward reclaiming national sovereignty in public health policy.
Critics argue that weakening the organization could jeopardize critical programs addressing tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and other global health emergencies. However, proponents of the bill see it as an opportunity to prioritize national interests and challenge the dominance of unelected supranational bodies.
Italy’s move to leave the WHO is not merely a political statement; it is a call for greater accountability and transparency in global health governance. By following Trump’s lead, Italy is asserting its commitment to health freedom and sovereignty, challenging the status quo, and demanding a more equitable and effective approach to public health.
Head over to HealthFreedom.news for more similar stories. Watch this video explaining what the World Health Organization is.
This video is from THE KING IS COMING channel on Brighteon.com.
More related stories:
- Trump orders U.S. withdrawal from World Health Organization.
- Trump withdraws U.S. from WHO, citing pandemic failures and unfair costs.
- Trump’s surprise move: U.S. withdraws from the WHO amid global pandemic concerns.
Sources include:
Bypass Big Tech Censors
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.