Ebola Outbreak Surpasses 1,100 Suspected Cases as Spread Reaches Uganda

On May 15, 2026, the Democratic Republic of the Congo confirmed its 17th Ebola outbreak — this time in Ituri Province, a conflict-scarred region in the country's northeast [1]. Within two weeks, the WHO declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), confirmed cases had spread to three Congolese provinces and crossed into Uganda, and the case count had surpassed 1,200 suspected and confirmed infections [2][3]. The pathogen driving this crisis is not the Zaire ebolavirus that responders have spent a decade learning to fight. It is Bundibugyo virus — a rare Ebola species for which no approved vaccine, monoclonal antibody therapy, or targeted antiviral exists [4].

That gap between the pathogen and the available tools defines this outbreak. So does the collision between disease and war in eastern DRC, where armed groups have made contact tracing "nearly impossible" in some health zones [5]. And so does an international funding picture that has deteriorated sharply: global response funding has more than halved, from $498 million pledged to $219 million actually available, according to the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention [6].

The Numbers: Confirmed Versus Suspected

As of May 30, 2026, the DRC Ministry of Health reported 225 laboratory-confirmed cases — nearly double the 121 confirmed just two days earlier — along with 1,028 suspected cases and more than 220 suspected deaths [6]. Uganda has confirmed nine cases, including one death, with at least three linked to travel from DRC [2][3]. Across both countries, the total exceeds 1,260 suspected and confirmed cases with at least 241 deaths [3].

The apparent case fatality rate (CFR) among confirmed cases stands at roughly 8% based on confirmed deaths alone — but this figure is misleading. The vast majority of deaths are among suspected cases who were never laboratory-tested, many in remote areas where patients die before reaching health facilities. When suspected deaths are included, the crude CFR across all reported cases is approximately 19% [1][3].

Source: WHO / CDC

Data as of May 31, 2026CSV

How does this compare? The 2014–2016 West Africa outbreak caused by Zaire ebolavirus produced 28,616 cases and over 11,000 deaths, with a CFR of roughly 40% [7]. The 2018–2020 Kivu outbreak, also Zaire, had 3,481 cases and 2,280 deaths — a 66% CFR [7]. Historical Bundibugyo outbreaks have been smaller but with CFRs of 32% (Uganda, 2007) and 51% (DRC, 2012) [8]. The current outbreak's lower apparent fatality rate may reflect both the natural history of Bundibugyo virus and the high proportion of unconfirmed cases inflating the denominator.

Source: WHO / CDC

Data as of May 31, 2026CSV

Geographic Spread and Cross-Border Transmission

The outbreak began in the Mongbwalu and Rwampara health zones of Ituri Province, with the presumed index case — a health worker — developing symptoms on April 24 [1]. By late May, confirmed cases had been reported across Ituri, North Kivu, and South Kivu provinces, with hundreds of suspected cases in Bunia, the Ituri provincial capital with over one million residents [9].

Uganda confirmed its first imported case in Kampala on May 16 — a person returning from DRC [3]. A second Kampala case, with no apparent link to the first, followed shortly after [3]. By late May, Uganda had confirmed nine cases. Uganda imposed a full border closure with DRC on May 27 [10], while Rwanda introduced mandatory quarantine for travelers from DRC on May 22 [3]. Kenya activated heightened border surveillance and screening, with three suspected cases testing negative [11]. Canada imposed a 90-day entry ban for residents of affected countries, and the United States barred non-citizen entry [9].

The speed of geographic spread is notable. The 2018–2020 Kivu outbreak, which also began in eastern DRC, took roughly four months to reach 1,000 cumulative cases [7]. The current Bundibugyo outbreak reached that threshold in approximately three weeks from the official declaration, though WHO noted the virus had been circulating for weeks before confirmation [1][9].

No Approved Vaccine, No Proven Treatment

The defining clinical challenge of this outbreak is the absence of licensed countermeasures for Bundibugyo virus. Ervebo (rVSV-ZEBOV), the Merck vaccine that proved effective against Zaire ebolavirus during the 2018–2020 Kivu response, was developed specifically for that species. Cross-protection against Bundibugyo virus has not been established [4][12].

An initial 400 Ervebo doses from DRC's prepositioned stockpile of 2,000 were deployed early in the outbreak, and the International Coordinating Group on Vaccine Provision approved approximately 45,000 additional doses for shipment [12]. But WHO advisors cautioned that Ervebo should be used against Bundibugyo virus only in "carefully designed research settings to assess performance," not as a proven intervention [13].

On May 28, a WHO expert panel identified three candidate therapeutics for priority evaluation in confirmed Bundibugyo cases: the monoclonal antibodies MBP134 and Maftivimab, and the antiviral remdesivir [13]. Combination therapy pairing a monoclonal antibody with remdesivir was also recommended. For post-exposure prophylaxis among contacts, experts recommended obeldesivir, an oral antiviral — though effective contact tracing remains operationally difficult in affected zones [13].

Two vaccine candidates are in development. The rVSV Bundibugyo vaccine, led by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), is a single-dose formulation estimated to be 7–9 months from clinical trial readiness [13]. A second candidate, ChAdOx1 Bundibugyo from Oxford University and the Serum Institute of India, could be available for clinical assessment within 2–3 months but requires additional animal data [13].

The approved monoclonal antibodies mAb114 (Ebanga) and REGN-EB3 (Inmazeb) — both FDA-authorized for Zaire ebolavirus — are not approved for Bundibugyo virus and lack established cross-species efficacy [4][13].

Funding: Pledges Versus Reality

International donors have pledged $500 million to the outbreak response [9]. The United States has pledged over $112 million [6]. The World Bank has mobilized financing and technical support for both DRC and Uganda [14].

But the gap between pledges and disbursement is wide. Africa CDC data shows available funding has more than halved from the pledged amount — from $498 million down to $219 million [6]. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), representing East African countries, agreed to redirect approximately $7 million toward prevention [6].

This gap echoes the 2018 Kivu response. During that outbreak, critics argued that slow disbursement and donor fatigue prolonged the epidemic. U.S. government funding for health programs in DRC specifically declined from nearly $33 million in fiscal year 2024 to less than $10 million in 2025 [15]. CARE reported losing $8.6 million in DRC support, largely from U.S. government drawdowns [16]. The International Rescue Committee reported reducing programming "from five to two" areas at the outbreak's epicenter due to funding cuts [15].

STAT News reported that U.S. aid cuts had left DRC "unprepared" for the outbreak, with Ebola response teams having their work frozen and programs designed to detect cases and dispatch response kits reduced or eliminated [15].

Conflict, Distrust, and the Limits of Contact Tracing

Eastern DRC's Ituri Province has experienced decades of ethnic conflict, with a recent resurgence of militia violence overlapping with the broader DRC-Rwanda conflict [5][9]. The WHO described the convergence as a "catastrophic collision of disease and conflict," with active fighting, restrictions by armed groups, and displacement of nearly one million people into camps [5].

The operational impact is measurable. Health workers managed to follow up with barely one in five identified contacts on any given day, according to WHO data [5]. Response teams must negotiate militia checkpoints and cross front lines to reach affected communities [9]. The Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) and local ethnic militias have attacked health facilities [6], and angry crowds have burned isolation tents and attempted to retrieve bodies for traditional burial — clashing with Ebola infection-control protocols [9].

Source: UNHCR Population Data

Data as of Dec 31, 2025CSV

The DRC ranks fourth globally for internally displaced persons, with 5.2 million people displaced as of 2025 — a figure that reflects the scale of instability confronting outbreak responders [17]. During the 2018–2020 Kivu outbreak, peer-reviewed research documented a statistically significant association between violent incidents and increased Ebola transmission in affected health zones [18]. The current outbreak operates in the same geographic and security environment.

Who Is Getting Sick: Demographics and Healthcare Worker Risk

WHO's initial epidemiological analysis found that the majority of suspected cases are aged 20–39, with over 60% female — a pattern the agency attributed to "significant risks associated with household and caregiver transmission" [1]. Women in eastern DRC disproportionately bear caregiving responsibilities for sick family members, a known driver of Ebola transmission in previous outbreaks.

Healthcare workers have been disproportionately affected from the outbreak's earliest days. Four health workers died within four days at Mongbwalu General Referral Hospital before the pathogen was even identified [1]. In Uganda, two of the seven initially confirmed cases were healthcare workers [3]. An American missionary doctor, Peter Stafford, contracted the virus while treating patients at Nyankunde Hospital in eastern DRC and was airlifted to Germany on May 19 [3].

The early concentration of cases among health workers points to gaps in personal protective equipment availability and infection-control protocols — particularly during the period before Bundibugyo virus was identified, when clinicians were treating patients with an unknown hemorrhagic illness. Whether healthcare worker infections now represent systemic PPE failures or the initial "sentinel" pattern typical of Ebola outbreaks remains an open question as surveillance improves.

The Case Against Ring Vaccination as the Primary Strategy

Ring vaccination — vaccinating contacts and contacts-of-contacts around confirmed cases — was the cornerstone of the successful response to the 2018–2020 Kivu outbreak. But several field epidemiologists and modeling researchers have argued that this strategy may be the wrong tool for the current context.

The first problem is biological: ring vaccination with Ervebo targets Zaire ebolavirus, not Bundibugyo virus, and cross-protection is unproven [4][13]. Deploying an unvalidated vaccine in a ring strategy risks creating false confidence among vaccinées and diverting resources from measures with established efficacy.

The second problem is operational. Research published before the current outbreak found that ring vaccination loses effectiveness when more than 10% of close contacts cannot be reached or refuse vaccination [19]. In the current outbreak, health workers are reaching roughly 20% of identified contacts on any given day — meaning 80% are being missed [5]. A combined ring-and-community vaccination strategy remains effective up to approximately 50% inaccessibility, but even that threshold may be exceeded in active conflict zones [19].

The third argument, articulated by WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus during his May 30 visit to Bunia, centers on community ownership. "Communities understand the problems better, and they know the solution, as well," he said [6]. This echoes a longstanding critique that over-medicalized responses — focused on treatment centers, vaccines, and international logistics — can crowd out the community trust-building and culturally appropriate engagement that ultimately bent the curve in previous outbreaks. In the 2014–2016 West Africa outbreak, transmission declined significantly in several districts only after community-led safe burial programs and local surveillance networks were established, sometimes independently of international medical interventions [7].

Doctors Without Borders (MSF) has emphasized that the Bundibugyo strain's distinct characteristics demand a different response framework than the Zaire-focused playbook, though the organization continues to support treatment and surveillance operations on the ground [4].

Regional Preparedness and International Legal Authority

If the outbreak reaches Kampala — a metropolitan area of over 3 million people and a major East African transit hub — the risk of regional spread increases substantially. Uganda's border closure on May 27 was an aggressive measure, but two confirmed Kampala cases had already been identified before the closure took effect [3][10].

Kenya has activated heightened surveillance at border crossings and airports, with the Ministry of Health coordinating with international health partners on screening, laboratory testing, and case management readiness [11]. Rwanda's mandatory quarantine for DRC travelers went into effect May 22 [3]. The U.S. Embassy in Kenya issued a worldwide health caution on May 28 [11].

Under the International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005, the WHO Director-General's PHEIC declaration on May 17 triggers temporary recommendations that member states are expected — but not strictly compelled — to follow [2]. The IHR framework lacks binding enforcement mechanisms; compliance relies on diplomatic pressure and states' own assessments of risk. During the 2018–2020 Kivu outbreak, several countries imposed trade and travel restrictions that WHO explicitly advised against, illustrating the gap between IHR recommendations and sovereign decision-making [7].

South Sudan and Tanzania, which share borders with DRC and Uganda respectively, face particular vulnerability given weaker health infrastructure and high volumes of cross-border movement. Neither country had publicly reported activation of formal Ebola preparedness protocols as of May 31 [3].

Five Recoveries, One Treatment Center, and What Comes Next

On May 31, WHO Director-General Tedros announced that five patients had recovered from Bundibugyo virus disease — four discharged that day and one on May 29 — during the opening of a new Ebola treatment center in Bunia [20]. Officials at the center said patients were recovering with "symptomatic treatment" in the absence of targeted therapeutics [20]. Brazil also identified two possible Ebola patients under investigation [20].

As of that date, total confirmed cases across both countries stood at 234, including 18 confirmed deaths [20]. The gap between suspected and confirmed cases — over 1,000 suspected cases remain unconfirmed — reflects the severe laboratory capacity constraints in conflict-affected areas.

The trajectory of this outbreak depends on three variables: whether candidate vaccines and therapeutics can be moved from laboratory to field trials within the projected 2–9 month windows; whether international funding commitments translate into operational resources before case counts accelerate further; and whether response teams can build sufficient community trust to sustain contact tracing and safe burial practices in an active war zone. The experience of previous Ebola outbreaks in eastern DRC suggests that none of these conditions will be met easily — or quickly.