Skip to main content

New York doctor who survived Ebola says he fears for healthcare workers

▶ Watch Video: Health officials battle new Ebola outbreak: Doctor who survived virus speaks out

A New York doctor who contracted and survived Ebola more than a decade ago says he is worried for healthcare workers who are at the center of treating the latest outbreak in a remote province of eastern Congo. 

“Healthcare workers are the group that I’m really concerned about because they had very close contact with people when they’re most contagious, particularly around the time of folks’ death,” Dr. Craig Spencer, an emergency room physician and public health professor at Brown University, told CBS News on Friday.

Authorities in eastern Congo’s Ituri province are contending with a new Ebola outbreak that is suspected in at least 246 cases, including 65 deaths, the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention announced Friday.

This is the 17th Ebola outbreak in the Congo since 1976. One of the worst outbreaks killed more than 11,000 people between 2014 and 2016. 

“What we know very well that the country has experience, but the region where it is happening is highly volatile with the humanitarian situation going on and the population moving around from South Sudan to Uganda and other parts,” Dr. Abdi Rahman Mahamud, World Health Organization director of health emergency alert and response operations, said during a news conference Friday.

Spencer contracted Ebola while working with the nonprofit group Doctors Without Borders in Guinea in September 2014. He was in Guinea for three weeks working with Ebola patients.

When he returned to New York City the following month, arriving home on Oct. 17, 2014, he said he began to self-monitor, taking his temperature twice a day.

Then on Oct. 23, 2014, just under a week after returning home, he developed a fever and was rushed by ambulance to Bellevue Hospital, a designated Ebola treatment center at the time.

Health officials tested and decontaminated his apartment, and his fiancée at the time and two friends were quarantined.

“The one that I was infected with, the Zaire strain, seems to have the highest mortality, but they all produce pretty similar symptoms of fatigue [that] ultimately leads to vomiting, diarrhea, incredible weakness and weight loss,” Spencer said.  

He was hospitalized at Bellevue for 19 days and made a full recovery. He was treated with a combination of antiviral and experimental treatments, as well as blood transfusions from an Ebola survivor.

“Let me tell you, 19 days in a room by yourself, other than a small window, a tiny screen… and providers who came in a few times a day dressed in space suits, that’s your only human interaction,” Spencer said. “I’m lucky though, because I’m alive, and the majority of people that were infected with Ebola are not, particularly the people that I was taking care of in West Africa and Guinea at that time.”

According to CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Céline Gounder, the latest outbreak is believed to be a strain known as the Bundibugyo ebolavirus, or BDV. Gounder says that strain has only been responsible for two known outbreaks prior to this, a 2007 outbreak in Uganda with 55 cases, and an outbreak in the Congo in 2012 with 57 cases.

She said there are no approved vaccines or treatments for BDV.

“Medical professionals seem very concerned about the possibility or the ability to contain this,” Gounder said. “It’s already a big outbreak at the point that we’re hearing about it. There have already been a number of deaths. And this is a strain of Ebola for which we have no treatment, no vaccines.”

The Africa CDC reported that of only 20 samples tested so far, 13 have been confirmed positive. 

The U.S. has been the single largest external player in Ebola outbreak response in the past, but now experts worry about the impact of the Trump administration’s dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development and its withdrawal of the U.S. from the World Health Organization.

Spencer said he believes it’s possible there’s a connection between the shutdown of USAID and the fact that the latest outbreak was not officially announced until Friday. He said it’s also concerning that the White House does not have a director for its Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response. Gerald Parker, who Trump tapped to run the office in February 2025, resigned later that year, and the position has remain unfilled. 

“Right now, we don’t have that capacity,” he said of responding quickly to global outbreaks. “We don’t have a director or anyone in the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response. We don’t have anyone coordinating across the State Department and the CDC, and our relations with foreign actors and the WHO. We’ve gotten rid of a lot of those lessons we learned the hard way over the past decade, and over the past five years.”

Prior to the latest moves by the Trump administration, Spencer said, the U.S. would have likely had USAID and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials on the ground in the Congo before the outbreak.

“Before the second Trump administration, USAID would have been on the ground,” Spencer said. “The CDC would have been on the ground at a moment’s notice, maybe even before a moment’s notice of a new outbreak of Ebola because we were in a bunch of countries. We created relationships beforehand.”

Despite those issues, though, Spencer said he believes the U.S. is still capable of dealing with a virus like Ebola, which he says “is not that great at spreading” despite its high mortality rate. He noted the U.S. response this month to the deadly hantavirus outbreak on a Dutch cruise ship. Eighteen Americans who were aboard the ship are currently being monitored in a quarantine unit at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.  

“We’ve seen over the past couple weeks with the National Quarantine Unit we have in Nebraska and the over a dozen centers that we have around the U.S. that are capable of taking care of very high consequence pathogens like hantavirus and Ebola,” Spencer said. “These were all commitments that we made as a country, particularly and partly because of cases like my own a decade ago.”

Trump’s top general is ‘looking for an off-ramp’ from Iran war as US military options remain limited, sources say

(CNN) — Over the last few weeks, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dan Caine has privately made clear to other top Trump advisers that the US needs to find an off-ramp from the war with Iran — because the military options on the table to escalate the conflict could backfire and airpower alone is unlikely to achieve President Donald Trump’s stated objectives, according to three sources familiar with the matter.“Caine is looking for an off ramp,” one of the sources said bluntly.Caine is not alone in his view that the war has reached a crossroads. He has discussed concerns about the military options for escalating the conflict and raised the prospect of finding an off-ramp from the war with other key Cabinet officials, including CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance, two of the sources said.The top US general has recently side-barred with some of those key, like-minded Trump advisers in an effort to facilitate interagency coordination and ensure they are on the same page ahead of meetings with the president. The aim has been to make clear the limitations and pitfalls of the available military options, including those that do not involve putting US boots on the ground, the sources said.“I think it is just his way of protecting the military,” one of the sources told CNN, referring to Caine’s discussions with other top national security officials within Trump’s cabinet about the Iran war.Trump has consistently appeared averse to the idea of deploying ground troops in Iran, instead signaling he believes that air bombing can force them to agree to a deal on his terms. Caine and others in Trump’s cabinet privately view that outcome as unlikely and instead have sought to develop other options that fit within the president’s own parameters, according to multiple sources familiar with recent discussions.Nearly six months into a conflict which opened with weeks of claims that Iran’s military capabilities had been decimated, and which remains defined by the president’s pledge of preventing Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, it is highly significant that Trump’s most senior general is privately arguing there is no easy military solution to end a war the president chose to enter.In response to CNN’s request for comment on this story, Caine’s spokesperson Joseph Holstead said: “We do not discuss the Chairman’s confidential conversations with the President, the Secretary, or other senior leaders, nor do we comment on anonymous, agenda-driven characterizations of those conversations by sources who were not privy to them.”CNN asked the White House for comment and the State Department and CIA declined to comment.‘Airpower has its limits’The war has reached a point where many of Trump’s top national security officials, bolstered by military doctrine, assessments from the US intelligence community and common sense, believe what Caine himself told lawmakers during a public hearing late last month — “airpower has its limits.”For those reasons, Caine and other Trump officials were wary of the latest plan late in July to launch new, more aggressive strikes due to concerns about the likely fallout that could come from escalating the conflict, even as the president appeared ready to initially greenlight what he described as a “massive” operation, one of the sources said, declining to elaborate on the operational details.“The only ones in favor of the operation were elements of CENTCOM,” the source added, noting Israel also broadly supported an operation to escalate the conflict.Trump ultimately decided to back off after talking with Middle East allies, who told him they were afraid of Iranian retaliation, specifically retaliatory attacks on their energy infrastructure, a senior administration official told CNN, adding that the president is not taking the planned strikes off the table for a future date.But dwindling US stockpiles of key munitions were also a factor, CNN has reported, as multiple sources said it was a concern that has been raised not only by Caine but also by Gulf officials, who have recently conveyed to administration officials how a shortage of high-end American air defense systems could impact their ability to ward off potential Iranian retaliation if Trump decides to escalate the conflict.Trump has repeatedly threatened to strike Iran’s energy infrastructure, a move sources said is unlikely to force Iran to capitulate — as Caine himself has alluded to publicly — and almost certainly prompt retaliatory attacks targeting energy infrastructure of Gulf countries. Doing so would also likely further alienate the Iranian population, rather than fuel blame toward the regime, several sources said.Trump has also considered bombing bridges, but doing so is similarly unlikely to yield productive results, per a second source. “There really isn’t much else to hit since it is whack-a-mole with drone and missile sites. Bombing powerplants would be publicly a lot more significant.”Handling Trump carefullyBut while Caine has raised concerns, he has also been mindful of preserving his relationship with Trump and been careful in how he conveys the potential downsides of military options when presenting them directly to the president, the sources said.He has worked hard in his time as chairman to make sure he has Trump’s ear, at one point even trying to secure an office at the White House so he could brief the president more regularly and have a highly secure space to work from when he’s there, according to people familiar with the matter.Caine was “doing his job” by recently raising potential downsides of military options for escalating the conflict — including concerns about the already depleted US munitions stockpile — during a White House meeting with Trump and other top officials late last month, two sources familiar with the discussion said.But during the same discussion, Caine also made clear to the president that if he wanted to go forward with those operations, “we could absolutely wreck them,” one of the sources familiar with that recent White House meeting told CNN about the chairman’s message.Privately, however, Caine has been more direct in acknowledging the limits of air power and reiterating his view that bombing alone is unlikely to achieve Trump’s stated objectives, at this stage of the war, according to a third source familiar with the matter.Some say Caine hasn’t been assertive enough with Trump. “He’s definitely pulling punches,” a source familiar with Caine’s interactions with Trump told CNN earlier this year, when comparing his White House conversations with his private discussions with military leaders about potentially launching the war.Caine appears to have become more vocal about the potential second and third order effects of potential US escalation in recent weeks. CNN previously reported that he specifically raised concerns about the depleted US munitions stockpile during at least two recent meetings with Trump where options for escalating were discussed.But at the same time, Caine has reiterated during those meetings that the US military can inflict massive damage on Iran if Trump ultimately decides to go forward with an operation that would escalate the war, according to a source familiar with one of those discussions.It’s part of Caine’s delicate balancing act, telling people privately that he wants to restore trust in his position as the country’s top general and in the military more broadly even as Trump has politicized both.Pre-war warnings about weapon stockpilesBefore the war began, Caine and other military leaders similarly warned Trump that a protracted military campaign could impact US weapons stockpiles — particularly those that support Israel and Ukraine. But now, senior US military commanders believe the munitions stockpile is “dangerously low,” a source previously told CNN, and Trump has become increasingly frustrated by how the issue appears to undermine his ability to credibly project strength in negotiations with Iran.Caine has raised concerns about the dwindling US munitions stockpile during at least two recent meetings with Trump where potential options for escalating the conflict were discussed, CNN has reported. Trump, meanwhile, appears more frustrated by the fact that the war’s impact of US munitions has been reported publicly — airing those grievances during a meeting with his Cabinet at Camp David last week.The munitions shortage is also one reason the Pentagon and US Central Command have recently begun to reevaluate the US’ military strategy, CNN has reported. For example, a senior military official at CENTCOM recently sent a crowdsourcing email seeking new creative and unconventional ways to pressure and punish Iran, sources previously told CNN.While soliciting fresh ideas is not necessarily a bad idea, particularly given the current state of the war, sources noted that doing so six months after the war started amounts to tacit acknowledgment things are not going well.“It is rough when you are looking at those options in the middle of the war instead of before it starts,” one of the sources familiar with the planning discussions said.As chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Caine is responsible for drafting military options for striking Iran, but even in pre-war meetings at the Pentagon with other senior officials, Trump’s top general was vocal about the potential downsides of launching a major operation — even then raising concerns about the scale, complexity and potential for US casualties of such a mission, according to sources familiar with his advice.But at the same time, Trump specifically invoked Caine by name in a pre-war post claiming his top military adviser believed the now-months long conflict with Iran “will be something easily won.”As the war approaches the six-month mark, tempered criticism about Caine’s approach to the job is being revived and questions about his relative lack of experience managing an extended conflict are beginning to emerge.“He is out of his depth on this one,” a source familiar with how Caine is navigating the current crisis — both strategically and in managing his relationship with Trump.But Caine is not an outlier, many within the administration as well as outside analysts agree that the only way to decisively defeat Iran would be through a major operation involving ground troops, a commitment that could potentially cost thousands of American lives. The Pentagon considers all scenarios, so those plans exist, but as of now no one in the administration is arguing for such drastic action.Therefore, as Caine and others continue to make sure Trump is aware that less drastic escalatory military actions could lead to negative results, the focus is on finding the off-ramp that offers the president a “symbolic” win — at minimum — he can try to sell to the American people without preventing a potential diplomatic breakthrough, starting with an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.CNN’s Haley Britzky and Alayna Treene contributed reporting.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story