Forza Ponte! The Court of Auditors’ decision is awaited, but there is scepticism within the government and thoughts are already turning to how to reallocate the billion

Now support the Bridge, and for once, Salvini too. We are about to reach the crucial moment, the decisive juncture. Those who love the Bridge over the Strait and dream of it, like Renzo Piano – who, in Francesco Merlo’s new book (Tutto qui. La costruzione di una vita, Solferino), suggests: “Do it, and do it well, with everyone in agreement, together”, can only say: “Don’t touch those funds, the billion for the Bridge”. The CIPESS resolution is expected in a few weeks’ time, as is the approval of the Court of Auditors, and in the offices of the DIPE, the government and the MIT, there is despondency. There are fears of another rejection and that the ‘treasure’ earmarked for 2027 – almost a billion euros – will be shifted into the budget, lost in the folds of the accounts, just as a wave carries a raft along.

Even those who do not approve of Salvini as a minister, but envisage, like Piano, ‘a Promethean undertaking’ – this grand engineering project – must now cross their fingers. On 29 October 2025, the Court of Auditors refused to grant its approval of the CIPESS resolution. The grounds cited were a lack of documentation and a breakdown in communication between ministerial departments. The DIPE (the Department for Economic Policy Planning and Coordination) had warned the MIT department, Salvini’s chief of staff, Alfredo Storto, and Elena Griglio, the head of legislative affairs: “We risk failing; we have not responded adequately”. It is the duty of the Court of Auditors not to cut corners and to exercise vigilance, and it is natural for a government to challenge the decisions of independent bodies – just as Istat is currently being challenged for having underestimated GDP. That is simply the nature of the game. But has the MIT played its part to the full? When the resolution was first rejected, Meloni reacted in a mature and confident manner: “It was an important test. We must ask ourselves: were we properly prepared?’ Months have passed and now comes the final test. The cost of the project is around 13.5 billion euros, spread over seven years. That is worth half a Budget Bill, but the more time passes, the more the world is in turmoil. Fuel prices are rising, and the Strait of Hormuz remains closed. Following the Court of Auditors’ decision, the government has reallocated the committed funds. The €2.8 billion earmarked for the bridge in 2025 has been redirected to the railways. There is a risk of a repeat. The funds allocated for 2026 amount to around €750 million. What happens if the Court of Auditors does not give its approval? Some are taking a gamble – and they are ministers: ‘If the Court rejects us again, it is clear that the project cannot go ahead.’ It is not just the Court of Auditors. The Higher Council of Public Works issued a new opinion yesterday containing 361 binding requirements. Of these, as many as 166 require further analysis. In short, this means starting from scratch. These checks entail new costs and price updates. Those who care about the project – and are not driven by ideological fervour; those who love it, regardless of political affiliations to be flaunted during election campaigns, and beyond Italy’s long-standing problem where inaction sometimes appears to be the only permissible form of legality – ask themselves: what is going wrong? The project had to overcome reservations at European level. Are we sure that those reservations have been overcome and that the opinion has been forwarded to CIPESS? The MIT assures us that they have been overcome, but will that be enough for CIPESS? There is clearly an issue of which Salvini is aware. The MIT’s technical unit is in trouble, as demonstrated by the affair concerning the investments made by ANAS and Ferrovie that were not reported to the MEF – those 750 million euros that helped keep the deficit-to-GDP ratio at 3.1 per cent, preventing an early exit from the infringement procedure. The MIT’s technical unit has been weakened since Elisabetta Pellegrini, the coordinator of the mission’s technical unit, came under investigation. The public prosecutor’s office seized her devices, and she only regained access to her telephone number a few days ago. No one questions the commitment of the technical staff, but can the team really sit an exam with its ‘number 10’ sidelined?

Let’s return to all the judges deciding the fate of the bridge. Two days ago, ART, the Transport Regulatory Authority, also gave its opinion on the toll charges. ART deemed the plan adequate, but ‘recommended the implementation of a monitoring system designed to verify the economic and financial sustainability of the project over time’. Another rejection would free up a billion to be used in the budget, but would deal another blow to Salvini, who has convened the Lega congress. It would carry political significance, both within the coalition and in the polls, just as the (long-awaited) construction of the Bridge would. In an era when straits are closing and the world is shrinking, a bridge – and here we quote, once again, Tutto Qui, that extraordinary account of a life and a biography – the Bridge is the smile we need, our eyes wide open. Merlo writes: “There is no void that the bridge cannot mock: man builds bridges – he is a pontifex to ‘draw close to God and even between two teeth, between two hands that touch, just to dance – as Lucio Dalla sings – on a plank between two mountains’.” Let us move forward with the Bridge while keeping a close eye on the accounts.