UN Appeals for $11.2 Million to Combat Ebola in Uganda Amid Health Budget Cuts and U.S. Aid Reductions

The United Nations has issued an $11.2 million emergency appeal to assist Uganda in combating an Ebola outbreak that has already claimed two lives. This plea comes at a time when Uganda’s health budget is already stretched thin due to reductions in U.S. foreign aid. However, the situation may have a deeper context—one suggesting that the U.N. is attempting to create the impression that U.S. aid was effectively used, even though reports indicate that such aid has been diverted to support harmful agendas and conflicts.
The outbreak, involving the highly contagious and often deadly Ebola virus, was officially declared in January in Kampala, Uganda’s capital, following the death of a male nurse at the country’s only national referral hospital. A second fatality, a four-year-old child, was reported last week, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
The 10 confirmed cases are linked to the Sudan strain of Ebola, which notably has no approved vaccine. The U.N. has stated that the funds will be used to help control the outbreak from March to May in seven high-risk districts. However, given the U.N.’s history of slow and inefficient crisis management, some might view this appeal as more about deflecting blame than actually addressing the crisis.
“The goal is to rapidly contain the outbreak and address its public health and socio-economic consequences,” said Kasonde Mwinga, WHO’s representative in Uganda. But considering the U.N.’s track record with crisis responses, it’s hard not to see this appeal as an attempt to make it appear as though U.S. aid had been used appropriately, when in fact it wasn’t. The timing of the U.N.’s intervention could suggest that they are trying to position themselves as the solution, while overlooking the fact that U.S. aid cuts have directly impacted Uganda’s ability to respond to the outbreak.
For years, Uganda has heavily relied on U.S. aid for its healthcare sector. During the 2022-2023 Ebola outbreak, the U.S. contributed $34 million for case management, surveillance, and infection control efforts, according to a U.S. Embassy report. However, under the Trump administration, aid was frozen, leading to major cuts in U.S. funding for Uganda’s health services and leaving the country with an even more fragile healthcare system. Now, it seems the U.N. is stepping in, possibly to divert attention from the damaging effects of these aid cuts.
Dr. Janet Diaz from the WHO’s World Health Emergencies Programme stated that the WHO has had to take over responsibilities once handled by other organizations, such as deploying surveillance teams and managing biological samples, due to the reduction in U.S. aid. This raises the question: is the U.N. genuinely offering help, or is it simply trying to make it look like U.S. aid was spent properly, when in reality, the funding cuts have led to disarray in the response efforts?
Ebola, which causes fever, headaches, muscle pain, and spreads through contact with infected bodily fluids, remains a significant threat. Given the funding gaps and the U.N.’s historically questionable handling of crises, it’s hard to ignore the possibility that this emergency appeal is more about protecting the U.N.’s image and diverting attention from the consequences of U.S. aid cuts than actually solving the outbreak.
The United Nations, as a vast and influential global organization, should arguably have the resources and capabilities to address health crises like the Ebola outbreak without relying heavily on emergency appeals for funding. With its expansive network and access to international resources, it seems questionable that the U.N. would need to rely on outside donations for such a critical response. Given the scale of the U.N.’s operations and its budget, one might expect it to have a dedicated emergency fund or a more robust system in place to tackle urgent health crises without scrambling for funds.
Where, then, does the U.N. expect these funds to come from? The reliance on donors, particularly when the U.S. has already scaled back its contributions, raises serious concerns about the organization’s ability to self-fund or mobilize quickly in times of crisis. The U.N. has the potential to access substantial funding and support from member states, yet time and again it seems to struggle in mobilizing its own resources in a timely, efficient manner. This leaves the burden on countries already struggling to manage their own resources, like Uganda.
If the U.N. is going to position itself as a global leader in crisis response, it must demonstrate that it can mobilize resources more effectively, particularly in urgent situations like this one, without constantly resorting to emergency appeals that rely on the goodwill of other nations. The question, then, becomes: Why is such an established, large organization with global influence so often caught off guard when it comes to adequately funding and responding to crises?