The ongoing Ebola outbreak in the northeast region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has put first responders on high alert, prompting them to scrutinize the series of events that might have contributed to the crisis. These include layoffs of health workers funded by the United States, critical shortages of medical supplies, and a notable decline in American backing for global aid initiatives.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), over a hundred deaths are believed to be associated with this outbreak, while nearly 600 others are under suspicion. They caution that the actual scale of the epidemic is likely much larger than what is currently known. Additionally, this particular strain of the virus—which lacks a specific vaccine or treatment—may have been spreading silently for months prior to detection.
Experts at WHO cite several factors for the delayed response: an unusual virus strain, insufficient health infrastructure in the rural area where the outbreak started, and ethnic tensions that hindered testing. The situation has also drawn attention to the repercussions of cuts to foreign aid by the Trump administration and its withdrawal from the WHO, the organization responsible for managing health crises like this one.
Even as the Trump administration seeks to attribute blame elsewhere, aid workers and experts argue that budget cuts and layoffs in various sectors have weakened the global response capabilities to the Ebola threat.
The Trump administration’s cuts can be characterized as multifaceted: they withdrew financial support from WHO, dissolved the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), made budget reductions at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and are in the process of decreasing health aid to DRC and Uganda—countries at the epicenter of the outbreak. Many experts assert that these actions have seriously undermined the global health infrastructure essential for effectively handling epidemics.
“When you consider all these factors, it’s difficult to believe there wasn’t an impact on surveillance and response capabilities in these nations,” noted Josh Michaud, an associate director for global health policy research at KFF.
The International Rescue Committee, active on the ground in DRC, highlighted how cuts to U.S. funding have led to delayed detection of the virus. Their statement emphasized that reduced disease surveillance systems due to significant funding cuts are fueling the rapid escalation of the current Ebola outbreak. Heather Reoch Kerr, the country director for DRC, remarked that years of inadequate investment and recent funding cuts have left healthcare facilities lacking necessary protective gear and support for prompt responses.
A senior State Department official asserted that the changes under the Trump administration did not hinder the outbreak response, claiming they acted swiftly once the outbreak was confirmed by the WHO. They further explained that necessary programs have carried over and funding allocations remain intact after USAID’s dissolution.
Another claim was made that none of the USAID restructuring had a direct link to either detection or response frameworks within the region, and numerous staff members involved in these issues were retained.
Dr. Satish Pillai, the CDC’s incident manager for the Ebola response, stated that the agency has been active in the area for decades, employing around 100 staff in Uganda and about 30 in DRC. The CDC has also mobilized hundreds more for the emergency response initiated recently.
Health officials have identified the first death linked to this outbreak occurring in Ituri Province on April 20, although the outbreak was only officially declared on May 15—a delay attributed to the inability to test locally for the rare Bundibugyo strain. Samples had to be transported over a thousand miles to a lab in Kinshasa for analysis.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed some frustration regarding WHO’s delayed identification of the situation, albeit acknowledging the challenges posed by the rural and conflict-affected landscape.
Experts also emphasize that U.S. funding cuts to WHO led to workforce reductions there, and no other country has stepped up to fill these gaps. More broadly, various countries—including the UK, Germany, and Canada—decreased their foreign aid contributions for health in 2025.
Two former USAID officials revealed a significant disruption in personnel with experience in managing outbreaks, as many were laid off when USAID was dismantled. One former official pointed out that even without direct USAID programs in Ituri Province, the agency could have helped coordinate efforts among health officials and NGOs.
“You can bring in many specialists, but without the ability to pay health workers or supply essential materials, progress is stunted, and that connection to USAID has been lost,” one former official noted.
The IRC conveyed that emergency responders are already at a disadvantage, having to prioritize essential supplies, such as gloves and masks, that would typically have been pre-stocked in healthcare facilities.
Historically, the U.S. government supported a variety of outbreak preparedness activities in eastern DRC until significant funding cuts came in March 2025. Bob Kitchen, the IRC’s Vice President for emergencies, acknowledged the ongoing emergency response but criticized the limited financial resources available.
From DRC, Save the Children’s Greg Ramm summarized the urgent need: “We’re lacking adequate funding.” Experts, including Ramm, warned that as the broader health system collapses, many more lives could be lost, emphasizing the need for prompt treatment for those with Ebola, and keeping facilities open for other diseases like malaria.
As of Tuesday, the State Department announced the mobilization of an initial $23 million in foreign assistance aimed at enhancing each affected country’s response capabilities, covering surveillance, laboratory capacity, and clinical management in Ebola-hit DRC and Uganda.
The CDC is spearheading the U.S. response to this outbreak, collaborating with WHO and national health authorities in the affected regions.
“We’re facing significant staff shortages across the board,” a CDC official commented, noting that various personnel have left or retired without replacements over the past year and a half.
The overall global health infrastructure, particularly the CDC’s, has suffered cuts, much of it stemming from funding withheld by the State Department—approximately $700 million—intended for global health initiatives like PEPFAR, and some malaria funding has also been withheld.
A CDC source explained that the funding for HIV/AIDS programs supports crucial public health teams and structures essential for health crisis interventions.
Previous Ebola outbreak responses relied heavily on USAID partners, explained Dr. Fiona Havers, an infectious disease physician with past experience at the CDC during the 2014 Ebola crisis in Liberia. These partners were instrumental in setting up clinics and managing communications.
However, last year, the Trump administration canceled numerous foreign aid contracts, effectively wiping out USAID and folding whatever remained under the State Department.
As Dr. Havers noted, it’s not only about funding—aid organizations have seen their programs and clinics shuttered, along with a significant reduction in community health workers. “These entities are no longer available in a robust manner to pivot for the Ebola response,” she explained.
Former USAID officials expressed concern that the abrupt funding cuts have led to a breakdown of trust between the U.S. government and local health authorities.
“In DRC, we were the primary health donor; our credibility and ability to oversights have taken a hit,” the first former USAID official remarked.
The second former official recalled when Elon Musk jokingly suggested he’d “accidentally canceled” funding for an Ebola effort in Uganda, which was then supposedly “immediately” restored. However, the reality is that funding cuts stalled necessary actions during the outbreak, and the USAID team that was involved has now been largely dismissed.
The withdrawal from WHO has also resulted in the U.S. missing out on vital information that would typically flow through formal reporting channels, although informal interactions continue.
“Not being part of the WHO conversation compromises U.S. government and CDC insights,” Dr. Havers reiterated, emphasizing a growing risk to national safety.
While a senior State Department official criticized WHO for their timing on outbreak identification, they defended the U.S. response, mentioning the deployment of Disaster Assistance Response Teams in the DRC and Uganda.
Despite the recent mobilization of funding for the Ebola outbreak, analysts suggest that future cuts to global health programs remain a concern.
Reports indicate the Trump administration’s intention to redirect $2 billion meant for global health efforts towards covering the costs of dismantling USAID, with approximately $647 million earmarked for reductions in global health security.
