It feels like the US government is on the sidelines this time
As Ebola claims lives in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda, the United States finds itself in the uncomfortable position of criticizing the very institution it recently defunded. Secretary of State Rubio's rebuke of the WHO's response arrives against a backdrop of American withdrawal from global health architecture and sweeping domestic cuts to pandemic preparedness — a tension that public health experts say reveals not incompetence abroad, but vulnerability at home. The 131 deaths in Central Africa are a present tragedy; the deeper question is whether the systems meant to prevent such crises from spreading have been quietly dismantled before the next one arrives.
- With 131 dead and the WHO declaring an international public health emergency, the Ebola outbreak in DRC and Uganda is no longer a contained local crisis but a signal demanding global attention.
- Secretary Rubio's public criticism of the WHO's response landed with sharp irony — the US withdrew from the organization last year, eliminating nearly 2,000 of its positions and a quarter of its workforce.
- Domestic health agencies are simultaneously absorbing wave after wave of layoffs, with HHS planning to cut 10,000 jobs across the CDC, NIH, and beyond, leaving pandemic response infrastructure visibly frayed.
- Experts warn the US is now less prepared to handle infectious disease threats than it was at the start of COVID-19, describing the erosion as both a strategic mistake and a national security vulnerability.
- The CDC learned of the Ebola outbreak only after it became public knowledge — a sign, epidemiologists say, that America has quietly stepped off the front lines of global disease surveillance.
Marco Rubio stood before reporters and offered a pointed critique: the World Health Organization had been slow to identify the Ebola outbreak spreading through the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda. With an estimated 131 people dead and an international emergency declared, the secretary of state's words carried weight — but also a particular irony. Months earlier, the Trump administration had withdrawn the United States from the WHO entirely, erasing nearly 2,000 jobs and gutting roughly a quarter of the organization's workforce.
Public health experts were quick to push back. Gigi Gronvall of Johns Hopkins noted that the WHO operates under severe constraints — limited resources, difficult terrain, active conflict zones — and that blaming it was misplaced. The more urgent concern, she argued, was closer to home. American public health infrastructure had been systematically weakened. Even a small number of Ebola cases reaching US soil could strain a system already stretched thin. "It is a strategic mistake — and a national security vulnerability," she said, "that we are worse off now to handle infectious disease threats than at the start of Covid-19."
The cuts were concrete and ongoing. The Department of Health and Human Services announced plans to eliminate dozens of positions across the CDC and NIH, following health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s earlier pledge to reduce the department's workforce by 10,000. The US pledged $13 million toward the Ebola response — a modest figure against the scale of the crisis.
Jennifer Nuzzo of Brown School of Public Health described a troubling shift in America's posture. The CDC had learned of the outbreak only after it became public — despite weeks of prior rumors — a departure from the US government's historical role in early disease tracking in regions like the DRC. "It feels like the US government is on the sidelines this time," she said.
Rubio acknowledged the logistical challenges of the response and said the US planned to open roughly 50 treatment clinics in the DRC. But the larger question remained unanswered: how would a country with a diminished health workforce, eroded preparedness capacity, and fractured international partnerships respond if the outbreak crossed borders? The Ebola crisis was, for now, a distant emergency — but also a stress test of systems that had been deliberately weakened, and a quiet preview of what might come next.
Marco Rubio stood before reporters on Tuesday and offered a diagnosis of the Ebola crisis unfolding in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda: the World Health Organization had been slow to sound the alarm. "The lead is obviously going to be the CDC and the World Health Organization, which was a little late to identify this thing unfortunately," the US secretary of state said. It was a pointed critique, delivered as an estimated 131 people lay dead from the outbreak and the organization scrambled to coordinate an international response.
But Rubio's words landed in a particular moment—one shaped by decisions made in Washington months earlier. Last year, when Donald Trump returned to office, one of his first acts was to withdraw the United States from the WHO entirely. That departure gutted the organization's capacity. Nearly a quarter of its workforce vanished—roughly 2,000 jobs erased from a total staff of about 9,400. Now, as a new disease threat emerged, the very institution Rubio was criticizing had been stripped of American funding and personnel.
The irony was not lost on public health experts. Gigi Gronvall, an immunologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, pushed back directly against Rubio's framing. The WHO, she noted, operates under severe constraints—limited resources, difficult terrain, active security threats. "Blaming the WHO is misplaced," Gronvall said. But she went further, turning the lens inward. The real problem, she argued, was not in Geneva but in Washington. American public health infrastructure had been hollowed out. The workforce had been slashed. Even a handful of Ebola cases reaching US soil would strain a system already stretched thin. "It is a strategic mistake—and a national security vulnerability—that we are worse off now to handle infectious disease threats than at the start of Covid-19," she said.
The cuts were not abstract. This week alone, the Department of Health and Human Services announced plans to eliminate dozens of positions across the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, and other agencies. These layoffs followed an earlier announcement by health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that he intended to reduce the department's 82,000-person workforce by 10,000 jobs. Meanwhile, the US had committed $13 million in assistance to the Ebola response—a figure that seemed modest against the scale of the crisis and the backdrop of broader retrenchment.
Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiology professor at Brown School of Public Health, described a troubling shift in America's posture. The CDC, she explained, had only learned of the outbreak after it became public knowledge, despite weeks of rumors beforehand. Historically, the US government had played a central role in tracking and responding to disease rumors in places like the DRC. "It feels like the US government is on the sidelines this time," Nuzzo said. The absence was not accidental. It was the result of deliberate policy choices made at the highest levels.
On Sunday, the WHO had declared the outbreak a "public health emergency of international concern." The organization warned that neighboring countries faced high risk of further spread due to population movement and trade. It also cautioned against the instinct to close borders or restrict travel—measures driven by fear rather than epidemiology, the WHO argued, that could actually worsen the crisis by forcing people through unmonitored crossings and disrupting emergency response efforts.
Rubio said the US was planning to open about 50 clinics to treat Ebola patients in the DRC, acknowledging the logistical challenges of reaching rural, war-torn terrain. But the broader question hung unresolved: how would a country with a diminished public health workforce, reduced pandemic preparedness capacity, and fractured international partnerships respond if the outbreak spread beyond Africa's borders? Experts warned that the erosion of American health infrastructure, combined with political divisions and misinformation, had left the nation more vulnerable than it had been in years. The Ebola outbreak in the DRC was a distant crisis for now. But it was also a test of systems that had been deliberately weakened, and a preview of what might come next.
Citas Notables
It is a strategic mistake—and a national security vulnerability—that we are worse off now to handle infectious disease threats than at the start of Covid-19.— Gigi Gronvall, immunologist, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
It feels like the US government is on the sidelines this time— Jennifer Nuzzo, epidemiology professor, Brown School of Public Health
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did Rubio blame the WHO when the US had just withdrawn from it?
Because it's easier to criticize an institution you've already decided to leave than to reckon with what that departure actually cost. The WHO was operating with a quarter of its staff gone—much of it American expertise—and Rubio was pointing at their slowness without acknowledging the role the US played in making them slower.
But was the WHO actually slow to identify the outbreak?
That's the thing—experts say no, not really. The WHO was working in a war-torn country with limited resources and serious security challenges. The real delay was on the American side. The CDC didn't even know about the outbreak until it was publicly confirmed, despite weeks of rumors. That's a change from how the US used to operate.
So the US is less prepared now than before?
Significantly. Public health agencies are facing layoffs right now, even as this outbreak is happening. The workforce has been cut, pandemic preparedness has eroded, and experts are saying we're worse off than we were at the start of Covid. A few cases reaching the US would be genuinely difficult to manage with the current staffing.
Is that Rubio's fault, or is he just responding to what he inherited?
He's the secretary of state now, so he's part of the administration making these cuts. But the deeper issue is that he's criticizing the WHO for being slow while the administration he serves is actively dismantling the American health infrastructure that would catch and contain the next outbreak. It's a contradiction.
What would actually help right now?
Investment in vaccines, diagnostics, public health workforce, hospital capacity. The US is committing $13 million to the response, which sounds like a lot until you realize it's a fraction of what's needed. But more fundamentally, experts are saying we need to stop treating pandemic preparedness as optional—it's a national security issue.
And if the outbreak spreads to the US?
That's the fear. With a reduced workforce and eroded infrastructure, even a small number of cases would be challenging to manage. The US used to be the institution other countries looked to for leadership in these moments. Now we're on the sidelines.