WASHINGTON, April 5 – In the aftermath of a catastrophic 7.7-magnitude earthquake that struck Myanmar on March 28, the world has watched rescue teams from across Asia and the West rush to the scene. From China’s tireless search-and-rescue squads to Russian medical units setting up field hospitals within hours, countries are responding swiftly and visibly. Yet, amid the global outpouring of support, the United States — historically a leader in humanitarian assistance — is conspicuously missing on the ground.
More than 3,000 lives have been lost in the wake of the earthquake, according to the Myanmar government. Rescue teams from over 15 nations have deployed hundreds of workers to help with relief efforts, and initial aid pledges from those governments have already totaled tens of millions of dollars. Images of teams from Vietnam, the United Arab Emirates, and India arriving in full force have filled screens around the world. Yet, despite the U.S. being renowned for its unmatched capabilities in disaster response, its role so far has been limited to a three-person assessment team.
This stark absence has triggered concern and criticism from humanitarian experts and former U.S. officials. The United States, known for its vast experience, heavy equipment, and elite search-and-rescue personnel from states like California and Virginia, has not deployed any of its disaster-response units to Myanmar. In earlier disasters — such as the 2008 Cyclone Nargis or recent cyclones in 2023 — the U.S. had collaborated with local partners to deliver life-saving aid. So why not now?
Much of the answer lies in a major shift in American foreign aid policy. Since the change in administration, thousands of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contracts have been canceled, its global staff downsized, and funding for aid organizations frozen or delayed. Humanitarian groups that once relied on U.S. support have struggled to maintain operations. Many are now using their limited reserves, intended for emergencies like this, to cover back payments the government has yet to release.
The current administration’s efforts to restructure USAID under the banner of “government efficiency” have significantly scaled back America’s global humanitarian presence. The agency, once a cornerstone of U.S. soft power, has seen its influence reduced. This approach appears to favor a leaner model of international engagement — one that critics argue is more narrowly focused on domestic priorities and strategic interests.
The Secretary of State recently defended the administration’s posture, saying that while the U.S. is not abandoning its global responsibilities, it must weigh its commitments carefully. He added that other wealthy nations should also contribute more significantly to international disasters, suggesting the burden shouldn’t rest solely on America’s shoulders.
Nevertheless, the real-world impact of this policy shift is becoming evident. In previous major natural disasters, the U.S. would have provided $10 to $20 million in initial aid and deployed large rescue teams within 24 to 48 hours. These teams, often self-sufficient, include engineers, medical personnel, search dogs, and supplies that allow them to operate in harsh conditions. They’re not just effective — they’re often the difference between life and death in the critical early hours after a disaster.
Now, despite having the teams ready in states like California and Virginia, the logistics to transport them — including airlift capabilities — appear to be among the services lost to the wave of canceled USAID contracts. Without transport, these teams sit idle while time ticks away for those trapped beneath the rubble in Myanmar.
Meanwhile, China, which shares a border and long-standing relationship with Myanmar, has taken the lead. Within 48 hours of the quake, Chinese rescuers had already saved an elderly man from the ruins of a hospital in Naypyitaw. By midweek, they had pulled out nine survivors, including a child and a pregnant woman. Russia, too, has deployed dozens of personnel, along with mobile clinics and supplies.
The absence of a U.S. presence on the ground is more than just a missed opportunity to save lives — it may also be a blow to America’s image abroad. Humanitarian leadership has long been a critical component of the country’s international influence. Now, with other nations filling the void, questions are being raised about the long-term implications for American diplomacy and global leadership.
Lawmakers from both parties are beginning to respond. Several members of Congress have urged the administration to quickly ramp up aid to Myanmar, stressing that delays only worsen the human toll and harm America’s standing.
For survivors in Myanmar, however, the politics mean little. What they see are the foreign teams working side-by-side with locals to lift debris and distribute food and medical care. And what they don’t see — for the first time in recent memory — is the Stars and Stripes among those delivering help.
The current moment reflects a crossroads in U.S. policy. Whether the country reclaims its role as a humanitarian leader or continues down a path of retraction could shape not just its global reputation, but the lives of countless people in future disasters.