In a recent press briefing at the US embassy in Rome, Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed concerns over the World Health Organization’s (WHO) delayed response to the ongoing Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Uganda. His remarks come as the United States grapples with significant public health funding reductions, raising alarms about the country’s preparedness for potential pandemics.
WHO’s Delayed Response Criticised
On 19 May 2026, Rubio stated that the WHO was “a little late” in identifying the deadly situation, which has resulted in the tragic loss of 131 lives in the DRC. Emphasising the role of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the WHO, he noted, “The lead is obviously going to be CDC… unfortunately, the WHO was a little late to identify this thing.”
This criticism follows the controversial decision by former President Donald Trump to withdraw the United States from the WHO, a move that experts claim has weakened global health responses. The withdrawal, enacted shortly after Trump resumed office last year, resulted in the loss of nearly 2,000 jobs, a significant reduction in the organisation’s workforce, which totals approximately 9,400.
US Aid and Response Efforts
Despite these challenges, Rubio announced that the US has committed around $13 million in assistance to combat the outbreak and plans to establish approximately 50 clinics in the DRC. He acknowledged the logistical difficulties posed by the rural and conflict-affected regions where these clinics will operate, stating, “It’s a little tough to get to because it’s in a rural area … and [a] hard-to-get-to place in a war-torn country, unfortunately.”
The WHO has declared the Ebola outbreak a “public health emergency of international concern,” highlighting the risks posed to neighbouring countries due to population movements and trade. The organisation has called for international cooperation to enhance surveillance and response efforts, urging countries not to impose travel restrictions that could exacerbate the crisis.
Experts Urge Investment in Public Health
Critics, including immunologist Gigi Gronvall from Johns Hopkins University, have pushed back against Rubio’s assertion that the WHO is at fault. Gronvall emphasised the limitations faced by the organisation, particularly in challenging security environments. She warned that the US’s current public health infrastructure is significantly weaker than it was at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, stating, “It is a strategic mistake – and a national security vulnerability – that we are worse off now to handle infectious disease threats.”
Echoing these sentiments, epidemiology professor Jennifer Nuzzo noted that the CDC only became aware of the outbreak upon its public confirmation, a shift from the agency’s historical proactive role in managing such health crises. “It feels like the US government is on the sidelines this time,” she remarked.
Ongoing Public Health Challenges in the US
As health agencies in the US face further budgetary constraints and workforce reductions, the Department of Health and Human Services announced plans to cut dozens of positions across various agencies, including the CDC and the National Institutes of Health. These cuts come in the wake of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s commitment to reduce the department’s workforce by 10,000 employees, exacerbating fears about the nation’s readiness for future health emergencies.
While experts believe that the recent hantavirus outbreak is unlikely to ignite a global health crisis, it has highlighted the fragility of public health systems in the United States. Concerns have been raised about how political divisions and misinformation might hinder public compliance with health guidance in the event of a new outbreak.
Why it Matters
The current Ebola crisis serves as a crucial reminder of the interconnectedness of global health and the importance of robust public health systems. As the US grapples with cuts to health funding and a diminished role in international health governance, the implications for both domestic and global health security are profound. The ability to respond effectively to infectious disease threats is not just a matter of national interest; it is a pivotal component of global stability. The decisions made today will shape the capacity to combat future health emergencies, underscoring the necessity for strategic investment and international cooperation in public health.
