Few people today view the U.S.-led response to the January 12, 2010, Haiti earthquake as a success, but that wasn’t always the case. Immediately after the disaster, despite the devastation and suffering, there was a broad consensus outside Haiti that America’s “compassionate intervention” (as TIME Magazine termed it) had been a success (according to the Los Angeles Times), reinforcing the belief that “in critical moments of human history ” the United States is, indeed, the indispensable nation” (Expresso, Portugal).

Recent disclosures from Hillary Clinton’s emails, made public by the U.S. State Department, reveal that this perception was not purely accidental. Judith McHale, then Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, wrote on February 26, 2010, about their efforts to counteract negative stories about the U.S. involvement in Haiti. A few weeks earlier, McHale had shared with Secretary Clinton favorable newspaper quotes about the U.S. efforts, which Clinton praised as a reflection of their effective leadership.

However, Chelsea Clinton, who was very close to the Secretary of State, had a different perspective. On February 22, after a four-day visit to the disaster area, Chelsea wrote a candid seven-page memo to her parents and their top aides. This memo outlined the complexities and challenges of the Clinton family’s involvement in Haiti and shed light on the inefficiencies and shortcomings of the response efforts.

Chelsea Clinton’s report, though candid and critical, was kept confidential, only becoming public through the release of around 35,000 emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, triggered by a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit connected to the 2016 presidential campaign.

Chelsea Clinton’s observations were stark. She described the international response as deeply flawed, noting that the UN and other aid organizations were often out of touch and ineffective. Despite the urgency of the situation, she found that local Haitians were taking charge of their recovery in meaningful ways, organizing themselves into governance structures within displacement camps. Yet, she criticized the aid organizations for ignoring these self-organized efforts and failing to meet the needs of the Haitian people.

Her insights highlighted a crucial lesson: disaster survivors are often best equipped to lead their own recovery, yet they are frequently sidelined by external authorities who presume they know best. Chelsea’s analysis was both prescient and insightful, noted by experts like Vijaya Ramachandran from the Center for Global Development.

However, Chelsea’s recommendations for improving the response seemed to align closely with her parents’ views rather than challenging them. Her suggestion was to centralize authority under her father, Bill Clinton, to streamline aid efforts. Despite acknowledging the need for better coordination, her plan risked creating an even more centralized and distant leadership structure.

Bill and Hillary Clinton were already deeply involved in the response: Bill as the UN Special Envoy for Haiti and Hillary as Secretary of State. The Clinton Foundation and other initiatives were also prominent in the recovery efforts. Despite criticism of ad hoc responses, the focus shifted to projects such as low-wage garment factories, a strategy Bill Clinton had advocated before the earthquake. The Caracol Industrial Park, a major project in northern Haiti, was eventually established with a substantial investment, though it has faced criticism for failing to meet job creation targets and adequately compensate displaced farmers.

In the aftermath, the recovery in Port-au-Prince has been slow, and the country continues to struggle with a cholera epidemic. The Clintons have acknowledged the epidemic’s link to UN peacekeepers, who have avoided accountability. President Michel Martelly, whom Hillary Clinton helped elect, faces challenges in organizing elections.

The Caracol Industrial Park has only partially fulfilled its job creation promises, and local resentment towards the park reflects broader frustrations with the Clintons’ approach. Many question whether the response could have been more effective if Chelsea Clinton’s early insights had been acted upon more promptly. As Vijaya Ramachandran observed, having had access to this analysis earlier might have made a significant difference.