EXPLORE THIS STORY
EBOLA OUTBREAK DECLARED GLOBAL EMERGENCY BY WHO AFTER 88 DEATHS IN CONGO
AI-generated content — Analyses are produced by artificial intelligence from press articles. They may contain errors or biases. Learn more
Istanbul views the Ebola outbreak through the lens of the US withdrawal from the WHO, highlighting the weaknesses of a fragile international response under the Trump administration.
Dominant angle identified — does not reflect unanimity of this country’s media
Istanbul, May 21, 2026. The World Health Organization's declaration of a global health emergency due to the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda is covered in Turkey through a particular geopolitical prism: the US withdrawal from the WHO under the Trump presidency and the dismantling of USAID.
The Daily Sabah reports that 91 deaths are now suspected to be linked to the ongoing outbreak, with approximately 350 cases declared. The majority of those affected are aged 20-39, and over 60% are women. The virus, of the Bundibugyo strain, for which there is neither a vaccine nor approved treatment, has already crossed the Congolese border to reach Kampala, the Ugandan capital, sparking international concern.
The Turkish daily highlights that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have announced a strengthening of controls at airports and entry restrictions for non-US citizens who have traveled to the DRC, Uganda, or South Sudan in the past 21 days. The US embassy in Kampala has temporarily suspended all consular services. A US citizen contracted the virus after exposure related to their work in the DRC; their transfer to Germany for treatment was underway at the time.
However, it is the criticism of the US strategy that takes center stage in the coverage. Matthew Kavanagh, director of the Global Health Policy Center at Georgetown University, is quoted by the Daily Sabah: the Trump administration's response is described as 'disappointing,' and travel restrictions are seen as 'theater rather than effective public health measures.' Kavanagh notes that during previous Ebola outbreaks, coordination between USAID, the CDC, and NGOs funded by Washington allowed for a swift response. This time, 'we are several weeks into the outbreak and only learning about it after hundreds of cases and significant spread, including in the Ugandan capital.'
The newspaper explicitly notes that Washington withdrew from the WHO this year, and US officials have dodged questions about the impact of USAID cuts. The CDC claims to be collaborating with international partners, but Turkish media focuses on the gap between announced ambitions – replacing the WHO with bilateral agreements – and the reality of a response deemed late by experts.
US-centric framing: Turkish coverage focuses primarily on US decisions and failures rather than local Congolese or Ugandan capacities
Preference for institutional criticism: the coverage highlights critical voices from the Trump administration over a balanced presentation of measures taken
Limited coverage of African response: the actions of Congolese, Ugandan health authorities, and regional African organizations are largely absent from the narrative
Discover how another country covers this same story.