From Ebola to conflict: Risks rise and the US is less able to respond

Trump's Ebola Response and the Dismantling of U.S. Foreign Aid

From Ebola to conflict - The Trump administration’s handling of the recent Ebola crisis in Central Africa has reignited debates about the U.S. government’s approach to international health emergencies. Amid the scramble to contain the outbreak, attention has turned to the broader implications of dismantling key foreign assistance programs. This shift reflects the influence of the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, which has been central to streamlining federal operations. Under Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s oversight, these reforms have targeted longstanding institutions designed to support global health and conflict prevention, raising concerns about their long-term effectiveness.

The Ripple Effect of U.S. Aid Cuts

A new University of Chicago study underscores the risks associated with reduced U.S. foreign aid. The research highlights a correlation between the withdrawal of American support and a rise in conflict in several African nations. Specifically, it notes a 12.3 percent increase in all conflict-related events, a 7.3 percent jump in battles, and a 6.8 percent rise in protests and riots. These figures suggest that the absence of U.S. assistance may be exacerbating instability in regions where it was once a stabilizing force. The findings align with broader critiques of the Trump administration’s focus on cost-cutting over comprehensive global engagement.

“An increase [in all conflict-related events] of approximately 12.3 percent, an increase in the number of battles of around 7.3 percent, and an increase in protests and riots of around 6.8 percent.”

The Ebola outbreak serves as a stark example of how these cuts could undermine international preparedness. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the crisis has reached alarming levels, local populations have faced not only the disease’s threat but also the compounded challenges of decades of war. Health workers from around the world struggle to make progress, as the region’s history of violence has left communities distrustful of outsiders and decimated critical infrastructure.

Legacy of Conflict and Its Impact on Public Health

Long-standing conflicts in the DRC have eroded the capacity of local health systems, making it harder to respond to outbreaks like Ebola. The destruction of medical facilities and the displacement of communities have created an environment where diseases can spread unchecked. At the same time, civil society groups that once acted as early warning systems for both health crises and political unrest have been weakened. This lack of local preparedness forces global agencies to take on more responsibility, often with limited resources and time.

Peacebuilding initiatives, once a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, have also suffered. The Department of Government Efficiency’s reforms have disrupted funding streams that supported programs aimed at fostering stability. These efforts were vital for preventing disputes from escalating into full-scale conflicts, which can then threaten public health and security. The interplay between conflict and disease is clear: without robust peacebuilding, health crises become more difficult to manage.

From Conflict Mitigation to Crisis

U.S. investments in conflict mitigation, violence prevention, and peacebuilding played a crucial role in addressing threats abroad before they reached American shores. These programs, managed by USAID and the U.S. Institute for Peace, worked in tandem with disease prevention efforts. By supporting local peacebuilders, the government helped create resilient communities capable of resolving disputes and maintaining order. This collaborative approach saved lives, reduced suffering, and ensured that humanitarian aid could reach those in need without being hampered by local instability.

For instance, the work of USAID’s conflict management office—established post-9/11—was instrumental in identifying and addressing early signs of unrest. The office focused on training local leaders and allies to build trust and heal grievances, preventing small conflicts from spiraling into larger crises. In places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti, these efforts were key to ensuring that aid operations could proceed smoothly, even in the face of political or security challenges.

The Cost of Underinvestment

As the Trump administration continues to prioritize military spending, the long-term consequences for peacebuilding and conflict prevention are becoming evident. While the 2027 budget request includes a $1.5 trillion allocation for the military, peacebuilding initiatives—rarely exceeding a few billion dollars annually—face near-total neglect. This trend threatens the U.S. ability to respond to both health and security emergencies, as the nation’s foreign policy tools grow increasingly fragmented.

The State Department’s regional bureaus, which traditionally spearheaded diplomatic efforts, no longer have the capacity to support local groups essential for detecting and mitigating conflict. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, community-led organizations have historically played a pivotal role in identifying tensions before they erupt into violence. Without targeted funding, these groups are struggling to maintain their operations, leaving gaps in the early warning network that could have prevented outbreaks or eased their impact.

Rebuilding a Comprehensive Approach

Addressing the challenges posed by underfunding requires a renewed commitment to development and humanitarian response. The State Department alone cannot shoulder this burden, as its current resources are stretched thin. Even with the world’s most advanced military, it is impossible to counter the complex interplay of health threats and political instability without a parallel investment in peacebuilding. This is where the original U.S. foreign assistance model excelled, combining health and security priorities to create a more holistic strategy.

Historically, the U.S. has recognized that conflict prevention is not just a foreign policy goal but a national security necessity. By supporting local peacebuilders and strengthening civil society, the government has often avoided the need for costly military interventions. The erosion of these programs during the Trump era signals a departure from this balanced approach, potentially leaving the U.S. more vulnerable to global crises. The Ebola outbreak is a reminder that the consequences of underinvestment extend far beyond immediate health impacts, touching every aspect of international stability.

As Congress weighs the 2027 budget, it has a unique opportunity to reinvigorate U.S. foreign policy. The lessons from past conflicts—such as those in the Balkans and Vietnam—demonstrate that thoughtful, sustained investments in development and peacebuilding yield long-term benefits. These efforts not only protect vulnerable populations but also reduce the likelihood of threats escalating into larger conflicts. The time has come to restore the U.S. commitment to this essential work, ensuring that the nation remains prepared to tackle both health emergencies and security challenges with equal vigor.

In conclusion, the Trump administration’s focus on military spending and its restructuring of foreign assistance programs have created a situation where the U.S. is less equipped to respond to complex global threats. The Ebola outbreak in Central Africa, coupled with the University of Chicago study’s findings, highlights the need for a more integrated approach to international affairs. By rebuilding its investment in conflict prevention and public health, the U.S. can once again lead with both strength and foresight, ensuring that its actions abroad are as effective as they are necessary.