Episode #329: US AID is MIA
“How could this happen now?! I mean, are we part of the problem allowing Burma to slip to that ‘ninth layer of hell’?”
These anguished words from Chris Milligan, a longtime official of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), capture both his heartbreak and dismay over the current state of U.S. engagement with Myanmar—or rather, the lack thereof. His words are especially poignant in the wake of the devastating 7.7 magnitude earthquake that struck amid the Trump Administration’s preceding dismantling of the very agency that would have led America’s humanitarian response. In this far-ranging episode, Milligan offers a sobering view of both the country’s potential and tragedy, as well as America’s missed opportunities in what may prove to be a historically consequential moment.
Milligan begins by describing his extensive experience of over 30 years with the Agency, highlighting his role in disaster response globally—from Haiti to Iraq—and particularly his involvement in Myanmar. He reflects on his tenure opening the USAID mission in Yangon in 2012 as one of the highlights of his career. At that time, the U.S. was following an “action-for-action” policy that rewarded steps toward reform by the Myanmar military government with increased engagement and assistance. In other words, their mission was literally starting up from scratch. “There were no staff,” Milligan recalls of those early days. “I opened the door to our offices. It was an empty room!”
It did not take Milligan long to realize that Myanmar was unlike anywhere else he had worked. While he had experience in past conflict zones, Burma stood out: for its complexity, layered ethnic conflicts, and long history of authoritarian rule. He worked quickly to build a team and launch initiatives in a context where international development had been absent for decades. But the goal was not development for its own sake, or to help legitimize the military regime; rather, it was an important tool for leveraging democratic and economic reform in Myanmar.
He warned international donors that Burma was “a land of good intentions with unintended consequences.” As an example, Milligan gives the example of a well-meaning donor who held a civil society meeting at a luxury hotel unknowingly owned by military cronies, which instantly damaged trust with local grassroots organizations. He emphasizes that development itself is not inherently good or bad; rather, the important thing is to understand where one is working, and the relationships and power dynamics there. Otherwise, one’s efforts may well end up being counterproductive
Despite the challenges of his own four years in Myanmar, Milligan says they were some of the most fulfilling of his career. He witnessed rapid change: new roads, more phones, even the arrival of Uber. He proudly notes the success of a coffee initiative in Shan State where skeptical international buyers were amazed at how quickly local farmers met global standards.
But it wasn’t all progress. His deepest regret remains the unresolved crisis in Rakhine State. From his very first days in the country, Milligan repeatedly visited the region, trying various humanitarian and community initiatives to ameliorate the growing inter-ethnic community strife, but not making any real progress. The suffering persisted, and the violence increased. He sadly admits that that this failure still stings.
Milligan turns his attention to USAID, itself. He is emphatic about its value to the United States because humanitarian aid is grounded in generosity and moral leadership; in this way, he explains, development assistance is very much in America’s national interest, adding that it falls under the National Security Agency (NSA). Its work prevents the spread of pandemics, stabilizes conflict-prone regions, creates trade partners, and reduces migration pressures. In Myanmar, the agency fostered deep, people-to-people connections, linking universities, businesses, and civil society across borders. In this way, Milligan argues, the agency advanced not just humanitarian goals but also democratic values in competition with rising authoritarian models like China’s.
He contrasts the American approach—rooted in individual rights, rule of law, and empowered private sectors—with China’s model, which promotes state control and economic dependency. With China as the major trading partner for 120 countries and aggressively expanding its influence, Milligan sees USAID’s role as vital to maintaining a balance of power and preserving democratic norms.
It is against this backdrop that the recent earthquake in Myanmar is especially tragic. Milligan describes how USAID has historically led major international disaster responses—deploying hundreds of personnel, search-and-rescue teams, and tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in funding. He provides a number of examples, such as the terrible 2023 earthquake in Turkey, when USAID sent 200 responders and provided $28 million in aid within two weeks, and when Hurricane Nargis devastated Myanmar in 2008, it deployed hundreds of people and tens of millions of dollars. But the response to Myanmar’s earthquake? “Just a three-person team, and $2 million!” he says in a mixture of disbelief, sadness and deep frustration. “Today, we have urban search-and-rescue teams sitting in Virginia and California… They should be in Mandalay! They should be pulling people out of buildings. And that window is almost closed.”
Milligan attributes the inadequate American response to the Trump administration’s abrupt dismantling of the agency. Nearly 5,400 contracts and grants have been canceled, and more than 80% of USAID programs have been terminated, including four humanitarian initiatives active in Myanmar before the quake. Entire teams of experts have been fired. These programs are not easily restarted. “It would take years and years,” Milligan laments. “USAID has lost the most technically competent people in the U.S. government.”
Meanwhile, countries like Vietnam, China, India, and Russia have filled the vacuum, already deploying hundreds of personnel. While Milligan is careful to emphasize that any assistance saving lives is welcome and should transcend political calculation, nonetheless, he says, the contrast is painful when reflecting on what has been lost through the absence of American support. What is more, Milligan worries that the long-term consequences will be massive: global leadership will be ceded to China and others; local partnerships will evaporate; logistical networks will disappear; and the agency’s unique ability to quickly pivot existing development programs to address emergencies will be lost. All this, in turn, will have chilling, long-term consequences: more pandemics, more conflict, fewer markets for U.S. exports, and a less free world. And at the heart of it all, a severed connection between the American people and the global communities they once supported.
For Milligan, Myanmar is not just another country. His voice softens as he recalls his four years there: biking across the countryside, eating Mohinga in morning tea shops, joining in local festivals. The warmth and generosity of the Burmese people inspired him deeply. “It was a magical four years,” he says. “And that’s why it was also inspiring. It made you want to work harder to support them … because they saw a brighter future for themselves, and you wanted to help them get there.”