The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said on Wednesday that the country’s specialized treatment network remains ready to respond to the ongoing Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where the World Health Organization has reported 344 confirmed cases and 60 deaths.

The issue has gained prominence after the U.S. State Department said American citizens exposed to Ebola but not showing symptoms would be quarantined at a facility under construction at Kenya’s Laikipia Air Base. The department has also pledged to prevent travelers infected with Ebola from entering the United States.

Public health specialists have increasingly urged the U.S. government to bring infected Americans back to the United States for treatment rather than relying on overseas facilities. Opposition to the Kenyan quarantine center has intensified following protests that resulted in at least two deaths, while a Kenyan court has ordered construction work halted.

The United States invested heavily in Ebola preparedness after the 2014 West African outbreak, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to strengthen treatment capacity and establish a national network of specialized facilities capable of handling highly contagious pathogens.

Reuters contacted the 13 hospitals and universities participating in the National Emerging Special Pathogens Training and Education Center network. Nine confirmed they are currently prepared to receive and treat patients exposed to Ebola.

The network includes institutions such as the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Emory University in Atlanta, Bellevue Hospital in New York and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. Four institutions, including Emory, did not respond to requests for comment.

“The United States’ investment in preparedness remains a critical component of national health security,” HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said, adding that participating hospitals are equipped to evaluate, isolate and treat patients with high-consequence infectious diseases while supporting broader outbreak response efforts.

Under federal requirements, designated treatment centers must be capable of caring for at least two patients exposed to contagious viral hemorrhagic fevers such as Ebola. Facilities are required to conduct quarterly training exercises, maintain laboratory testing capabilities and stock protective equipment.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has dozens of personnel deployed in the DRC and has said members of the U.S. Public Health Service Corps could be sent to support operations at the proposed Kenyan facility. American healthcare workers and aid personnel also continue to serve in the region through international relief organizations.

Several healthcare officials, including former CDC leaders, argued in an open letter this week that medical evacuation to established U.S. treatment centers would pose fewer risks than housing exposed Americans at a newly constructed overseas quarantine site.

A former CDC official familiar with the response effort said concerns surrounding the Kenya plan could complicate efforts to recruit American personnel for outbreak response missions.

The official said some prospective volunteers fear they could be left overseas if exposed to the virus, potentially undermining confidence in government support for public health workers deployed to epidemic zones.

The planned changes would affect workers across the Department of Health and Human Services, including staff involved in shaping public health policy, regulation and research oversight, the sources said. The move follows Trump’s campaign pledge to reclassify certain federal employees viewed by his advisers as exercising significant influence over government policy.

The proposal is tied to a revived version of “Schedule F,” a federal employment category first introduced during Trump’s first term that would allow agencies to remove some career civil servants from traditional job protections. Critics said the measure could expose career officials to politically motivated dismissals, while supporters argued it would increase accountability within the federal bureaucracy.

Employees at agencies overseen by HHS, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health, could be affected depending on how individual positions are classified, the sources said.

The administration has not publicly disclosed how many employees may lose protections or which roles would be targeted first. HHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Trump and allies have argued that career officials across federal agencies have obstructed presidential priorities and insulated policy decisions from elected leadership. During the 2024 election campaign, Trump repeatedly pledged to reshape the federal workforce and remove what he described as entrenched bureaucratic resistance within government institutions.

Federal employee unions and governance watchdog groups have opposed the effort, warning it could weaken the independence of scientific and regulatory agencies responsible for public health oversight, drug approvals and medical research funding.

The issue is expected to draw legal and political scrutiny as the administration moves to implement broader changes across the federal workforce.

In February 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. assumed office as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services with a message that diverged from conventional public health framing.

Addressing employees, he described the United States’ primary challenge as not only chronic disease but a broader “spiritual malaise,” linking public health outcomes to moral and personal factors. He stated that solutions must begin with “a spiritual question” centered on individual responsibility.Within weeks of that address, the White House initiated plans to reduce staffing levels at the department by 20,500 positions, according to the provided data.

The move came as the agency continued to manage a range of public health responsibilities, including disease prevention and response.In March 2025, during what was described as the country’s most significant measles resurgence in 34 years, Kennedy reiterated his emphasis on non-medical dimensions of health.

Speaking to an audience of medical trainees, he referred to “malevolent forces” and framed responses in terms of “spiritual warfare,” describing family routines such as shared meals as part of the response.

Over the course of his tenure, Kennedy has also promoted a range of alternative or non-mainstream health approaches cited in the material, including the use of vitamin A for measles, peptides for longevity, and the consumption of raw milk. At the same time, he has questioned aspects of vaccine safety and efficacy, positions that have drawn attention within public health discussions.

Analysts and observers cited in the material link Kennedy’s rhetoric to broader political currents. Savannah Tate, who has written about her experience within religious movements, described the use of terms such as “spiritual warfare” as consistent with language associated with Christian nationalist ideology.

She characterized such language as part of a broader narrative framework that emphasizes conflict between opposing moral forces.The material describes Christian nationalism as a movement advocating alignment between governance and a specific interpretation of Christianity, including the potential erosion of the separation between church and state.

Some political figures referenced in this context include Russell Vought, identified as associated with the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025,” and Donald Trump, who has described his administration’s agenda as addressing internal challenges, including “anti-Christian bias.”Other officials cited include JD Vance, who has referred to Christianity as foundational to American identity, Pete Hegseth, who has described the United States as a Christian nation, and Mike Johnson, who has supported policies aligned with conservative religious positions.

Public health experts referenced in the material have raised concerns about the implications of such rhetoric. Gary Gunderson, a professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, stated that the use of religious language in governance could affect the relationship between scientific institutions and public trust. He described the development as an attempt to reshape the basis of that relationship.

Academic research cited in the material, including work by sociologists Joseph Baker, Stephen Perry, and Andrew Whitehead, suggests that tensions between religious and scientific frameworks may arise where science is perceived as an alternative source of authority.

Within the Department of Health and Human Services, internal tensions have also been reported. Calley Means, a senior adviser to Kennedy, has publicly described efforts to reform institutions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

His statements included references to combating “demonic forces,” directed in part at former officials such as Demetre Daskalakis, who later resigned following policy changes including the dismissal of members of a federal immunization advisory committee.Budgetary decisions have accompanied these policy and rhetorical shifts.

According to figures cited in the material, reductions include $518 million from National Institutes of Health research grants, $698 million from the National Science Foundation, $6.9 billion from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention programs, and $28 billion from the Environmental Protection Agency. A proposed 2027 budget includes a $16 billion reduction in HHS funding compared to 2026 levels.

Additional reductions include $389 million from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, with a portion of funding redirected toward faith-based initiatives addressing addiction. These measures have been linked to Kennedy’s stated emphasis on addressing underlying “spiritual” causes of health conditions.

The material also outlines financial and institutional intersections involving individuals in advisory roles. Calley Means, identified as co-founder of Truemed, held substantial equity in the company while advising the administration, according to disclosed financial records cited in the text.

The company facilitates purchases of wellness-related products using health savings accounts.Other figures referenced include Mark Hyman, associated with wellness businesses, and Nicole Saphier, who replaced a previous nominee for surgeon general. These developments are presented as part of a broader shift in health policy priorities and messaging.

The material further describes how rhetoric emphasizing personal responsibility and skepticism toward institutions may influence public perceptions of healthcare. A cited example involves a South Carolina family declining vaccination despite severe health consequences, referencing statements attributed to political leaders about vaccine schedules.

Researchers such as Fatima-Zahra Aklalouch have analyzed the communication strategies used in this context, noting a framing that contrasts “natural” and “unnatural” approaches to health. According to her analysis, such framing can align with broader ideological narratives that question institutional authority.