"For I dipped into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;
Till the war-drum throbbed no longer, and the battle-flags were furled
In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world."
​

— Alfred Lord Tennyson, Locksley Hall (1842)​
​
Harry Truman carried these aspirational words in his wallet throughout his presidency, sustaining his vision of a world governed by universal principles of justice. To Truman, international law represented humanity's best hope.
​
It’s a safe bet Donald Trump’s wallet carries no Victorian prose.
​
Last week, when Trump ordered American forces to destroy a speedboat carrying eleven Tren de Aragua smugglers allegedly bound for U.S. shores, many decried it as a violation of the principles Truman held dear. Colombian President Gustavo Petro condemned it as “murder”, warning it violated international law. Russia, wielding veto power in the UN Security Council—today’s most powerful "Parliament of Man"—declared it "absolutely unacceptable"

The Moral Hypocrisy of International Law

Consider the moral authority of these critics: one regime that enables the very cartels that decimate our communities while the other destroys Ukraine.
​
Ronald Reagan understood this hypocrisy. When presented with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982 — the very treaty invoked today in disputes over maritime interdictions — he refused to sign. Reagan saw how it would yield American sovereignty to international bureaucrats and judgments that “would not give the United States or others a role that fairly reflects and protects their interests."
​
Reagan recognized what Truman’s vision could become: a weapon wielded by America's enemies against the interests of its citizens. When the UN General Assembly later condemned his liberation of Grenada as "a flagrant violation of international law", Reagan cut through the moral hypocrisy, saying it "didn't upset my breakfast at all."
​
Consider international law’s most powerful arbiter, the International Criminal Court, and its inclination toward entrenched power. Of its 70-plus indictments, the vast majority have hit Africans, reflecting European priorities while Africans themselves lack representation. Brutal dictators like former Central African Republic President François Bozizé game the system, referring cases to punish their enemies—as China and other major powers remain untouchable.
​
If the ICC is international law’s court, the UN Human Rights Council is its theater — a stage where authoritarian governments invoke law to shame their rivals and shield themselves. China currently holds a seat through 2026 despite crimes against humanity against Uyghurs—the mass detention camps and forced sterilizations the Biden administration labelled “genocide”. When the UN tried to investigate Xinjiang in 2022, China dismissed the damning report as "illegal and void" and blocked further scrutiny. Sudan sits on the council while conducting ethnic cleansing in Darfur. Cuba holds a vote over human rights decisions while imprisoning dissidents for decades.
​
As dictators twist international institutions into weapons, democracies bind themselves to rules that tyrants will never face. The result is a system that punishes virtue while rewarding vice.
​
And though some international law scholars now denounce Trump’s strike as “murder”, these same voices were notably silent when Obama’s drones killed nearly 4,000 people across the Middle East — enemy combatants, wedding parties, and funeral processions alike—revealing how easily international law can be politicized. Then, leading academics largely debated the margins rather than condemning the program outright. Obama’s strikes may have been justified, but today’s “manifestly unlawful” and “murder under international law” accusations were notably absent.

Authority Without Accountability

The double standard is glaring — but the real danger lies deeper. International law's most fundamental flaw lies in granting authority without responsibility. Those who condemn American actions have no vested interest in the safety of Americans, and no accountability to its people. When foreign bureaucrats issue judgments against U.S. actions, American citizens have no electoral power to reject their authority.
​
The eleven men killed in that speedboat were allegedly carrying death to American shores. The international lawyers condemning their destruction will never attend the funerals of those who would have died from their cargo. They will never explain to grieving mothers why legal theories mattered more than children's lives. They will never face the consequences of their judgment.
​
Truman's vision of a parliament of nations governing through law was noble. But that vision assumed moral actors would populate moral institutions. None of these assumptions have proven true. International law has become what Truman never intended: a tool of tyranny disguised as justice.
​
Criticism of the morality, wisdom, and constitutionality of Trump’s strike are all fair game. But for the sake of grieving American families, appeals to international law deserve to be — figuratively — blown out of the water.
​

Refer a Friend:

If you've enjoyed this episode of Dispatches from the Rebellion, please consider referring a friend. Forward this email and ask them to click on the "Subscribe" button below to sign up.