WFP Asks for $101 Million for Congo Ebola Response, Citing 5,500 Cases and 2,642 Deaths in the Outbreak's First 100 Days
The Bundibugyo-strain outbreak in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, declared a global health emergency in May, had more than 6,600 confirmed cases reported as of early September, and the U.S. has both pledged money and barred entry from three African countries.
An Outbreak That Outran the Toolkit It Was Given
In eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, an Ebola outbreak declared just 100 days ago has already killed more people than most Ebola outbreaks kill in their entire run. The World Food Programme said on September 9 that in those first 100 days alone, the outbreak produced more than 5,500 cases and 2,642 deaths[4][15]. Since then the numbers have kept climbing. As of early September, ministry data tracked by the World Health Organization put the total at roughly 6,686 confirmed cases and about 3,226 deaths across DRC and Uganda[1][3].
Do the math on those numbers and you get something stark: close to 48% of the people who test positive die[1][3]. That is not a typo. It is close to a coin flip.
Part of the reason is where the virus landed. The outbreak spans 48 health zones across five provinces, and Ituri alone accounts for roughly 90% of confirmed cases[4]. Those are also provinces with years of armed conflict behind them, where nearly 10 million people were already going hungry at crisis or emergency levels before Ebola arrived[4].
The other part of the reason is the virus itself. This is not the strain the world built its defenses against, and that single fact shapes almost everything else in this story.
The Vaccine in the Freezer Doesn't Fit This Virus
Ebola is not one virus. It is a family of related species, and the world's only licensed vaccine, Merck's Ervebo, was built and tested against just one of them: Zaire ebolavirus[2][3]. This outbreak is caused by a different species, Bundibugyo virus[2][3]. Ervebo was never proven to work against it, and neither were the approved antibody treatments.
That matters because the standard Ebola playbook depends on having a vaccine that works. Responders normally use something called ring vaccination: find a confirmed case, vaccinate everyone that person had contact with, then vaccinate the contacts of those contacts, building a protective ring around the outbreak before it can spread further. Doctors could not run that playbook here on day one, because they did not have a vaccine proven against this species.
WHO declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern, its highest level of alarm, on May 16, 2026[1][2]. Since then, WHO advisers have cleared Ervebo for use inside a clinical trial anyway, reasoning that testing a plausible vaccine produces an answer either way, rather than waiting years for a perfect one. Moderna has also started a first-in-human trial of an mRNA vaccine built on the same technology behind its COVID-19 shot, retooled to target Bundibugyo[3]. WHO says three vaccine trials should be running by October or November[3]. None of them will have results in time to change what has already happened.
Why Food Aid Is Being Pitched as Outbreak Control
On September 9, WFP renewed its appeal for $101 million over the next six months to fund the regional Ebola response, including $76 million earmarked for DRC alone[4][15]. That money would keep food moving, keep logistics running, and keep U.N. humanitarian flights in the air across the outbreak zone[4][15]. WFP officials say they are "stunned" that donors have funded the medical response but not the food side of it[4].
The logic behind that ask is worth spelling out, because it is not obvious. Containing Ebola depends on quarantine: a household with a sick or exposed member has to stay put so the virus cannot travel with them. But quarantine only works if that household has enough food to actually stay home. If the cupboard is empty, someone leaves to find a market, or to attend a funeral, and the chain of infection keeps moving.
That is WFP's core argument: hunger is not a side effect of this outbreak, it's a mechanism that spreads it. The appeal is also a competitive one. WFP needs $293.6 million over six months just to run its full DRC operations, so the Ebola-specific ask is a slice of a much bigger shortfall, competing for donor attention against Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and South Sudan[4].
The Fight in Washington Over What Actually Slowed the Response
The sharpest argument in this story is not about the virus. It is about whether the United States' own choices made the outbreak worse, and it splits cleanly along the same lines that split most American aid debates.
Democratic lawmakers, former USAID Administrator Samantha Power, and aid workers point to the numbers. USAID sent DRC nearly $1.2 billion in fiscal 2024. In fiscal 2025, after the agency was dismantled, that fell to $715 million[5][7][8][14]. Health and Human Services funding to DRC dropped too, from nearly $33 million to under $10 million over the same period[14]. Power put the argument plainly: "I don't believe we would have a spiraling Ebola epidemic if USAID had not been dismantled[14]." Sen. Dick Durbin called the broader foreign aid cuts "sweeping and self destructive[14]."
Their case rests on a structural point about how outbreak prevention works. Surveillance officers, local labs, and community health networks that catch a cluster in its first week produce no headlines when they succeed, because nothing happens. Emergency funding packages announced months into a crisis are the opposite: visible, announceable, and, critics argue, too late to matter as much.
The State Department rejects that argument directly, calling it false[6][14]. It points to more than $242 million in additional Ebola funding announced August 5, part of a U.S. commitment of up to $500 million pledged at the June G7 summit[6]. Its case for the entry restrictions is a technical one: a 21-day suspension on travelers from DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan roughly matches Ebola's incubation period, the stretch of time between infection and the first symptoms[6][10][13]. That window catches people who are infected but not yet sick, and not yet detectable at a screening desk. CDC reports the result it treats as the scoreboard: no Ebola case from this outbreak has been confirmed in the United States, and it rates public risk as low[10].
Both sides can point to something real. The funding trend line is real. The August pledge is real. Neither one resolves whether a fully staffed USAID would have caught this outbreak sooner, because that is a counterfactual, not a measurement.
A Border Rule That Looks Different From Kinshasa
The travel restrictions read differently depending on which side of them you stand.
For the countries imposing them, a 21-day entry suspension is a low-cost, high-visibility way to reassure a domestic public. For the countries facing them, it is closer to a penalty. Africa CDC Director General Dr. Jean Kaseya called the U.S. restrictions "unacceptable," warning they would damage the economies of the affected countries[11][12]. He singled out South Sudan in particular, saying it had reported zero suspected cases and zero deaths, and yet was still restricted[11][12]. Al Jazeera counted at least 15 countries that had imposed some form of restriction, and noted the United States moved first[12].
That grievance is not new. Health officials often point back to the 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak, when flight cancellations from wealthy countries cut off the very supply chains and personnel that responders needed, while also giving affected governments a reason to delay reporting new cases for fear of triggering more bans. DRC has already suspended its own flights to and from Bunia in the east, a step that shows the restrictions are reshaping movement even within the country[12].
Underneath the dispute is a basic mismatch of incentives. An importing country pays almost nothing at home for a travel ban and gains political cover. The exporting country pays in lost trade, lost travel, and reputational damage, and gets nothing in return except the argument that the ban does not actually stop the virus. Both sides are responding rationally to what the policy costs them, and both sides are also citing real reasons.
What the Coverage Leaves Out, and What's Still Ahead
Which parts of this story make the front page depends heavily on where you're reading it. Fox News led with the State Department's Level 4 "Do Not Travel" warning, framing the outbreak mainly as a risk to American travelers[9]. CNN and STAT centered aid workers and former officials tying the outbreak's speed to the USAID cuts, largely without testing the counterfactual against a strain that had no vaccine to begin with[5][7]. Al Jazeera and Health Policy Watch organized their coverage around what wealthy countries did to African economies, giving less space to the incubation-period logic behind the entry rules[11][12]. The State Department's own releases lead with cumulative dollar figures and flatly reject the aid-cut argument, without addressing the gap between money spent now and prevention funding that ended in 2025[6][14].
What nearly none of this coverage leads with is the plainest fact in the entire outbreak: this is a virus strain with no licensed vaccine and no proven treatment[2][3]. That fact doesn't assign blame to anyone, which may be exactly why it isn't anyone's talking point.
Three vaccine trials are due to start by October or November, aimed at a species of Ebola the world's existing arsenal was never built to fight[3]. Whether any of them read out before this outbreak burns itself out is still an open question. So is whether WFP's funding appeal, its second in three months, gets met before the answer arrives.
Summary
An Ebola outbreak in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo has become the fastest-growing on record, according to the World Health Organization and the U.N. World Food Programme[3][4]. It was declared in mid-May 2026 and made a global health emergency on May 16[1][2]. WFP says the outbreak produced more than 5,500 cases and 2,642 deaths in its first 100 days[4][15]. Reported totals have kept climbing since: about 6,686 confirmed cases and roughly 3,226 deaths as of early September, per WHO-tracked ministry data[1][3]. That works out to a death rate near 48% of confirmed cases — about one in two people who test positive.
The virus here is not the usual one. It is the Bundibugyo species of ebolavirus[2][3]. The licensed vaccine, Merck's Ervebo, and the approved antibody drugs were built for a different species, Zaire ebolavirus[3]. So doctors began this outbreak without a proven shot or a proven cure. WHO advisers have since cleared Ervebo for use in a trial anyway, Moderna has started a first-in-human trial of an mRNA candidate, and WHO says three vaccine trials should begin by October or November[3].
On September 9, WFP said food aid has to be part of the response and reiterated its ask for $101 million over six months — including $76 million for DRC alone — to keep food, logistics and U.N. humanitarian flights running[4][15]. Its argument is practical: if a quarantined family has no food, someone leaves the house to find some, and containment breaks[4]. Nearly 10 million people in eastern DRC were already at crisis or emergency hunger levels before the outbreak[4].
The main U.S. dispute is not about the virus. It is about whether Washington's own choices made this worse. Democratic lawmakers, former USAID administrator Samantha Power and aid workers say the 2025 dismantling of USAID gutted the early-detection and local-capacity work that once slowed outbreaks like this one[5][7][8][14]. The State Department says that is false, and points to more than $242 million in additional Ebola funding announced on August 5, part of a U.S. commitment of up to $500 million made at the June 16 G7 summit[6]. A separate fight runs alongside it: the U.S. barred entry to travelers who have been in the DRC, Uganda or South Sudan within 21 days, and Africa CDC's director general has called such restrictions 'unacceptable'[11][12][13].
The Event
The World Food Programme said on September 9, 2026 that food assistance must be central to the Ebola response in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, and reiterated its appeal for $101 million over the next six months — including $76 million for DRC alone — for food, logistics and U.N. Humanitarian Air Service flights across the region[4][15]. WFP said the outbreak, declared on May 15 and caused by Bundibugyo virus, is the fastest on record, with more than 5,500 cases and 2,642 deaths in its first 100 days[4][15]. WFP said the outbreak now touches 48 health zones across five provinces — Ituri, North Kivu, South Kivu, Tshopo and Haut-Uele — with Ituri accounting for about 90% of confirmed cases[4]. WHO declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern on May 16, 2026, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says no cases linked to this outbreak have been confirmed in the United States[1][2][10].
Undisputed Facts
- WHO declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern — its highest formal alarm — on May 16, 2026[1][2].
- The outbreak is caused by Bundibugyo virus, a species of ebolavirus for which no vaccine or specific treatment is licensed[2][3].
- WHO and CDC both describe this outbreak as spreading substantially faster than earlier Ebola outbreaks and as the second largest on record[3][10].
- WFP said the first 100 days produced more than 5,500 cases and 2,642 deaths, and that it needs $101 million over six months for the regional Ebola response, including $76 million for DRC alone[4][15].
- WFP says the outbreak spans 48 health zones in five eastern provinces, with Ituri accounting for about 90% of confirmed cases[4].
- The U.S. State Department announced on August 5, 2026 that it intended to provide an additional $242 million for Ebola response and related humanitarian aid, tied to a G7 pledge of up to $500 million made June 16[6].
- The U.S. suspended entry for travelers who had been in the DRC, Uganda or South Sudan in the prior 21 days, and Travel Advisories for all three countries stand at Level 4 – Do Not Travel[6][12][13].
- CDC says no cases from this outbreak have been confirmed in the United States and that risk to the American public and to travelers remains low[10].
- WHO said in early September that trials of three candidate vaccines should begin by October or November; Moderna has started a first-in-human trial of an mRNA candidate targeting Bundibugyo, and a Phase 3 trial will test Merck's Ervebo, licensed in 2019 for a different Ebola species[3].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- A virus outside the toolkit
- Bundibugyo virus is a different ebolavirus species from Zaire, which is what the licensed vaccine and antibody drugs were built for[2][3]. That means the standard playbook — ring vaccination, where responders vaccinate a case's contacts and their contacts to build a wall around the outbreak — could not be run on day one. Whatever any government did or did not fund, responders started this outbreak with fewer tools than in 2018 or 2021.
- Conflict terrain
- The outbreak sits in Ituri and North Kivu, provinces with long-running armed conflict and displacement, where nearly 10 million people were already at crisis or emergency hunger levels[4]. Contact tracing requires people to answer questions and stay where you can find them. Both are hard where households move to stay safe.
- Prevention money is invisible; emergency money is announceable
- Surveillance and lab capacity produce no headline when they work. Emergency packages do. That asymmetry pushes any government toward big late checks over small early ones, and it is the structural reason the $242 million August announcement and the fiscal 2024–25 funding drop can both be true at once[6][14].
- Border measures are cheap domestic politics
- For an importing country, a 21-day entry suspension costs little at home and buys political cover. For Kinshasa, Kampala and Juba, it costs trade, travel and reputation — and, historians of the 2014 outbreak argue, discourages fast reporting of new cases. Both incentives are real and they point in opposite directions[11][12].
Material realityAs of early September 2026, WHO-tracked ministry data reported roughly 6,686 confirmed cases and about 3,226 deaths across the DRC and Uganda — a death rate near 48% of confirmed cases[1][3]. WFP's widely cited 5,500 cases and 2,642 deaths is a first-100-days snapshot from the May 15 declaration, not the current total[4][15]. Ituri accounts for roughly 90% of confirmed cases, and spread into Tshopo — including Kisangani, a river and road hub — raises the risk of movement along major transport corridors[4]. At least 45 health workers had died and 155 had been infected as of August 9, a loss that compounds because each one is both a casualty and a responder removed[1]. No U.S. case has been confirmed, and CDC assesses risk to the American public as low[10]. Three vaccine candidates are headed into trials by October or November, none yet proven against this species[3]. None of this changes if the argument over USAID is settled either way.
Narrative as a weaponThree groups are actively shaping how Americans read this. WFP wants you to believe hunger is a transmission mechanism, because that reframes a food appeal as epidemic control and moves it toward health-security budgets it does not currently reach. The State Department wants you to believe the dollar totals are the story and that no U.S. case is the scoreboard, because both make the 2025 USAID decision look survivable. Critics of that decision — Democratic lawmakers, former USAID leadership, and the implementing organizations that lost contracts — want you to believe this epidemic is the counterfactual proof, and they have real budget lines to cite, though a counterfactual cannot be proven. Africa CDC, meanwhile, is running a separate campaign aimed less at Washington's checkbook than at its border policy. Note what almost nobody is emphasizing: the single hardest fact is that this is a strain with no licensed vaccine, which is nobody's talking point because it does not assign blame.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asWFP's core claim is that hunger is not a side effect of the outbreak — it is a transmission driver. Quarantine only works if a household can stay put. If there is no food in the house, someone walks to a market or a funeral, and the chain of infection continues[4]. WFP also says it is the backbone others depend on: it runs the U.N. Humanitarian Air Service flights and the road logistics that move health workers and supplies into remote Ituri and North Kivu[4][15]. Its officials say they are 'stunned' that donors have not funded the food side of an Ebola response the world says it wants to end[4].
WhyWFP is competing for scarce money against Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and South Sudan, and needs $293.6 million over six months for DRC overall — the $101 million regional Ebola ask (including $76 million for DRC) is a slice of a larger shortfall[4]. Framing food aid as epidemic control, not charity, moves it from the humanitarian budget line to the health-security one, where donors are currently spending[6].
Impact on themIf the appeal is unfunded, WFP says it must choose which of the nearly 10 million people already at crisis or emergency hunger levels in eastern DRC to cut[4]. In practice that means smaller rations, fewer hot meals at treatment centers, and grounded humanitarian flights.
Frames it asCongolese and continental health officials make two arguments. First, they are fighting a virus with no licensed vaccine, in provinces already broken by armed conflict — this is a hard outbreak, not a badly run one[2][3]. Second, they argue that Western travel bans are both bad science and a punishment: Africa CDC Director General Dr. Jean Kaseya called the restrictions 'unacceptable,' said they will damage the economies of affected countries, and noted that South Sudan was placed under restriction despite reporting zero suspected cases and zero deaths[11][12]. Their analogy is the 2014 West Africa response, when bans cut commercial flights that responders needed and discouraged countries from reporting cases early.
WhyKinshasa needs external money and supplies without conceding control of the response, and needs flights and trade to keep running. Africa CDC is trying to establish that African institutions, not Western agencies, set the terms of African outbreak response.
Impact on themHealth workers are dying: as of August 9, 45 had died and 155 had been infected[1]. Congo suspended its own flights to and from Bunia in eastern DRC[12]. Restrictions from at least 15 countries hit travel, trade and remittances[12].
Frames it asThe administration's position is that it is spending heavily and acting fast to protect Americans. It points to more than $242 million in additional Ebola funding announced August 5, on top of over $200 million earlier, inside a U.S. commitment of up to $500 million[6]. It says directly that claims USAID's restructuring hurt the Ebola response are false[14]. On travel, its case is that a 21-day entry suspension matches the outer edge of Ebola's incubation period — the time between infection and symptoms — so it catches people who are infected but not yet sick and not yet detectable at a screening desk[10][13]. CDC's own page reports the result it treats as proof: no confirmed U.S. cases, and low risk to the public[10].
WhyPolitically, a domestic Ebola case would be the administration's worst outcome, so it is buying margin at the border. Fiscally, it wants to show that a smaller foreign-aid apparatus can still surge money at an emergency — validating the 2025 USAID decision.
Impact on themThe administration owns the outcome either way. It is also providing loans to help U.S. citizens leave the region and reroute travel[6].
Frames it asTheir argument is about timing, not totals. They say the money that prevents an epidemic is small, slow and unglamorous — paying local surveillance officers, labs and community health networks that spot a cluster in week one — and that this is exactly what USAID funded before it was dismantled[5][7][8]. Emergency money in month four, they argue, buys body bags rather than prevention. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) called the foreign aid cuts 'sweeping and self destructive'[14]. Former USAID Administrator Samantha Power said, 'I don't believe we would have a spiraling Ebola epidemic if USAID had not been dismantled,' a remark she first made in a June 2026 Bloomberg interview[14]. Their evidence is the funding trend line: USAID sent DRC about $1.2 billion in fiscal 2024 and $715 million in fiscal 2025, and HHS sent nearly $33 million in fiscal 2024, falling to under $10 million in 2025[14].
WhyLitigants are still suing over USAID's dismantling, and this outbreak is the strongest available real-world test case[14]. Democrats are making foreign aid cuts a 2026 campaign issue.
Impact on themFormer USAID staff and implementing partners lost the contracts at issue. If the counterfactual claim holds up, it strengthens the lawsuit; if the outbreak turns without a U.S. case, it weakens the political argument.
Frames it asTheir argument is that this outbreak exposed a gap everyone knew about: the world built countermeasures for one Ebola species and left the others uncovered[3]. Ervebo, licensed in 2019, targets Zaire ebolavirus; Bundibugyo is a different species, so nobody can promise it works[3]. WHO advisers still cleared Ervebo for use in a trial — the reasoning being that a plausible, already-safety-tested vaccine tested inside a study beats waiting for a perfect one, because a trial produces an answer either way. Moderna's mRNA candidate, mRNA-1469, uses the platform behind its COVID-19 vaccine, which lets developers swap in a new target quickly[3].
WhyManufacturers get a live efficacy signal, regulatory goodwill and a case for stockpile contracts. WHO gets to show its research pipeline can move in months rather than years.
Impact on themWHO said trials of three candidates should begin by October or November[3]. If they read out, a licensed Bundibugyo vaccine follows; if the outbreak is contained first, the trials may not gather enough cases to answer the question.
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.8
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United Nations News | U.N. institutional | 3 | 'Ebola response in eastern DR Congo must include food aid, WFP says' — relays the appeal with attribution in the headline[15]. | Attribution is clean ('WFP says'), but the piece carries no donor-side or skeptical voice on whether food aid is the binding constraint. |
| World Food Programme | U.N. agency, donor-funded | 4 | 'As Ebola accelerates in eastern DRC, WFP warns food assistance and logistics are critical to containing the outbreak' — food aid as the missing piece of epidemic control[4]. | Uses the first-100-days totals (5,500 cases, 2,642 deaths) rather than the higher current count, and leads with 'fastest on record.' Both are accurate, but the framing is built around an active funding appeal, and the agency is the proposed recipient. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 4 | 'Ebola outbreak: What travel restrictions have countries imposed?' — an inventory of restrictions, noting the U.S. moved first[12]. | The organizing question is what wealthy countries did to Africans, not what the virus is doing. The public-health rationale for a 21-day entry rule gets little space. |
| Fox News | U.S. right | 5 | 'US warns Americans not to travel to Congo amid deadly Ebola outbreak' — the story is a U.S. travel-risk story[9]. | Frames the outbreak through the American traveler and the Level 4 advisory. African case burden and the aid-cut argument are secondary or absent. |
| STAT | U.S. health/science trade press | 5 | 'Trump's cuts to foreign aid are undermining the Ebola response, insiders say'[7]; also reported the entry ban straight[13]. | Sources are largely current and former aid insiders, an interested group. Its technical reporting on the strain and the entry ban is closer to straight description. |
| U.S. Department of State | U.S. government, executive branch | 5 | 'Ebola Response Update' — a running tally of U.S. dollars committed and U.S. citizen services[6]. | Leads with cumulative funding figures and rejects the aid-cut critique as false[14]. Does not address the gap between emergency spending now and the prevention spending that ended in 2025. |
| CNN | U.S. left-of-center | 6 | 'US funding cuts have hampered response to the deadly Ebola crisis, aid workers say' — causal claim, attributed to sources[5]. | The headline asserts causation in the sources' voice. 'Aid workers say' does the hedging, but the counterfactual — how fast a no-vaccine strain would have spread anyway — is not tested. |
| Health Policy Watch | Geneva-based global health outlet, funded by global health philanthropies and institutions | 6 | 'Africa CDC Chief Condemns Ebola Travel Restrictions And Broken Aid Promises' — amplifies Kaseya's critique[11]. | Adopts the language of the source it covers ('condemns,' 'broken promises'). Its readership and funders sit inside the global health system whose budgets are at stake. |
References
- 2026 Ebola epidemic — Wikipedia · crowd-edited tertiary source aggregating WHO and DRC ministry situation reports
- Ebola disease caused by Bundibugyo virus, Democratic Republic of the Congo & Uganda (Disease Outbreak News) — World Health Organization · U.N. health agency; member-state and donor funded
- Ebola outbreak – DRC 2026 (situation page) and related WHO vaccine-trial statements — World Health Organization · U.N. health agency; member-state and donor funded
- As Ebola accelerates in eastern DRC, WFP warns food assistance and logistics are critical to containing the outbreak — World Food Programme · U.N. agency issuing a funding appeal; voluntary donor funded
- US funding cuts have hampered response to the deadly Ebola crisis, aid workers say — CNN · U.S. commercial broadcaster, left-of-center editorial tilt
- Ebola Response Update – August 5, 2026 — U.S. Department of State · U.S. executive branch; party to the dispute over aid cuts
- Trump's cuts to foreign aid are undermining the Ebola response, insiders say — STAT · U.S. health and biotech trade outlet owned by Boston Globe Media
- Ebola outbreak in DRC draws attention to Trump administration's dismantling of USAID — NPR · U.S. public radio; center-left audience and editorial tilt
- US warns Americans not to travel to Congo amid deadly Ebola outbreak — Fox News · U.S. right
- Ebola Outbreak: Current Situation — Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · U.S. federal health agency
- Africa CDC Chief Condemns Ebola Travel Restrictions And Broken Aid Promises — Health Policy Watch · Geneva-based global health outlet funded by global health institutions and philanthropies
- Ebola outbreak: What travel restrictions have countries imposed? — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded
- U.S. bans entry from Ebola-affected countries as American patient is identified — STAT · U.S. health and biotech trade outlet owned by Boston Globe Media
- Amid Ebola, Hantavirus Outbreaks, Democrats Decry Trump's Health Cuts — KFF Health News · nonprofit newsroom of KFF, a health policy organization funded by foundations; editorially independent but health-policy focused
- Ebola response in eastern DR Congo must include food aid, WFP says — United Nations News · U.N. institutional news service