A Democratic bill with 19 Democratic cosponsors · See all 19 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Epidemic Barrier and Outbreak Leadership Act, or the EBOLA Act. It requires the United States to continue participating in the World Health Organization. The text points out that infectious disease outbreaks threaten national security and public health. It notes that the 2026 Ebola Disease outbreak in Central and Eastern Africa has spread across borders with over 1,000 cases. It also mentions that the previous administration initiated a withdrawal of the United States from the organization. Finally, the bill directs the government to rejoin the organization and help respond to the Ebola outbreak.
Yes· 3 of 37
- Scored +8
Does this strengthen ties with allied countries?
Restores U.S. membership in the WHO, strengthening ties with global health partners.
- Scored +8
Does this make the country readier for the next outbreak?
Directly aims to rejoin the WHO for disease surveillance and outbreak coordination.
- Scored +7
Does this send more money or help to other countries?
Authorizes voluntary contributions and programmatic support for Ebola efforts in Africa.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill authorizes additional spending for WHO membership dues and outbreak response efforts.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill authorizes new expenditures to rejoin and fund the WHO.
- Scored -1
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Increases government spending without identifying specific offsets.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Rejoining the World Health Organization: Under Section 3, the President must take all necessary steps to rejoin the organization within 30 days of the bill's enactment. This is positive because participation enhances the ability of the United States to monitor emerging infectious diseases and protect the health of the American people, as noted in Section 2.
-
Immediate Outbreak Response: Section 3 also requires the government to immediately collaborate with the World Health Organization to respond to the Ebola Disease outbreak in Central and Eastern Africa. This is beneficial for helping stop the spread of a disease that poses a threat to public health.
-
Funding for Membership and Relief: Section 4 authorizes necessary appropriations to pay assessed contributions to restore United States membership and to support the response effort of the World Health Organization and other United Nations entities. This is positive because it aims to prevent global transmission of the virus, including transmission to the people and territory of the United States.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Financial Costs: Under Section 4, the bill authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to pay assessed contributions, financial obligations, and voluntary contributions. This could be viewed as a negative burden on taxpayers who will fund these costs.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would immigrants be better off under this? — Improves health security for those traveling from or living in affected regions. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income populations are often most vulnerable to pandemics and lack of public health infrastructure. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban areas are more susceptible to the rapid spread of infectious diseases. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — General public health protection. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — General public health protection. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Provides general public health protection. Would children be better off under this? — Protects children from the threat of a global Ebola epidemic. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Provides general public health protection. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Provides general public health protection. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — General public health protection. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — General public health protection. Would men be better off under this? — General public health protection. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Protects middle-aged adults from the threat of a global Ebola epidemic. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Provides general public health protection. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — General public health protection. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — General public health protection. Would retired people be better off under this? — General public health protection. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — General public health protection. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Protects seniors from the threat of a global Ebola epidemic. Would students be better off under this? — General public health protection. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Provides general public health protection. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — General public health protection. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General public health protection. Would women be better off under this? — General public health protection. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Protects young adults from the threat of a global Ebola epidemic. Would business owners be better off under this? — Reduces the risk of economic shutdowns caused by a global pandemic.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — Restores U.S. membership in the WHO, strengthening ties with global health partners. Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad? — Resumes collaboration with the UN and other international health bodies. Does this send more money or help to other countries? — Authorizes voluntary contributions and programmatic support for Ebola efforts in Africa. Does this make trade with other countries easier? — Containing an epidemic helps prevent disruptions to international trade and travel.
- Healthcare
- Does this make the country readier for the next outbreak? — Directly aims to rejoin the WHO for disease surveillance and outbreak coordination. Does this put more money into medical research? — Funding for WHO programmatic support often includes research and data sharing. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Improves global disease surveillance and response capabilities.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Preventing a global pandemic helps maintain economic stability and avoid lockdowns. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill authorizes new expenditures to rejoin and fund the WHO. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill authorizes additional spending for WHO membership dues and outbreak response efforts. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Increases government spending without identifying specific offsets.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Collaboration with WHO facilitates scientific data sharing and global health research.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this tighten control of the border? — Preventing the transmission of Ebola into the U.S. serves as a public health border security measure.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Mandates the President and Secretary of State to take specific actions to rejoin the WHO.
- 10/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/6/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/16/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/10/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
- 15 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Yvette ClarkeDemocrat · New York
Jasmine CrockettDemocrat · Texas
Danny DavisDemocrat · Illinois
Madeleine DeanDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Henry JohnsonDemocrat · Georgia
Pramila JayapalDemocrat · Washington
Jonathan JacksonDemocrat · Illinois
Sydney Kamlager-DoveDemocrat · California
Stephen LynchDemocrat · Massachusetts
Seth MoultonDemocrat · Massachusetts
Sarah McBrideDemocrat · Delaware
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Ilhan OmarDemocrat · Minnesota
Johnny OlszewskiDemocrat · Maryland
Deborah RossDemocrat · North Carolina
Rashida TlaibDemocrat · Michigan
Shri ThanedarDemocrat · Michigan
Nydia VelázquezDemocrat · New York
James WalkinshawDemocrat · Virginia