The Warring Visions of American Power | The Ezra Klein Show

Ezra Klein speaks with writer and Harvard fellow Linda Kinsler about whether international law can serve as a foundation for a renewed, more “moral” American foreign policy amid Democratic divisions over Ukraine and Gaza. They discuss calls from parts of the US left to treat international law as a guiding constraint on American power, and Kinsler argues that law alone cannot substitute for political leadership or enforcement capacity. The conversation centres on the International Criminal Court: Kinsler describes US hostility towards the ICC as longstanding, and says current sanctions on sitting judges are making it difficult for the court to function, while US officials justify measures as protecting American personnel and allies. Klein and Kinsler also explore the selective way US politicians cite the ICC—supporting action against Vladimir Putin while resisting warrants affecting allies—and how international law can be both aspirational and a framework that creates loopholes and bureaucratic defences.

They consider rival visions of US power: Trump-era “flexible realism” and a countervailing push to subordinate US action to legal rules and multilateral approval. Kinsler says other powers, including China, may try to shape legal norms to their advantage, particularly around sovereignty. Toward the end, she argues that restoring credibility would require more than rhetorical recommitment: practical, reparative measures—such as funding victim compensation mechanisms and making claims registries meaningful—could make international law materially consequential for people affected by war.

• Kinsler says international law cannot by itself resolve current foreign-policy ruptures without political enforcement and leadership.
• She says US sanctions on sitting ICC judges are hindering basic operations, including payments and access to US-linked technology.
• Kinsler characterises the State Department’s messaging as framing the ICC as a threat to US personnel and allies, citing warrants involving Israeli leaders.
• Klein and Kinsler discuss perceived hypocrisy: US figures sometimes praise ICC action against adversaries while opposing its reach over allies.
• They argue international law can operate as a restraint on superpower overreach, but also provides legalistic categories and loopholes that can blunt moral accountability.
• Kinsler suggests future US re-engagement could focus on material support—victim funds and reparative mechanisms—rather than immediate ICC accession.