“A Problem from Hell” Or One Hell of a Problem? The Paradox of Becoming Bureaucrats When Intellectuals Clash with Themselves

In her Pulitzer Prize-winning book, “A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide,” Samatha Power offers a comprehensive critique of the twentieth-century genocides and how the USA and the international community failed to respond to genocides through their reluctance to interfere to prevent them. Power criticizes policymakers and politicians alike for prioritizing political expediency over moral responsibility since they often neglect taking immediate action and avoid labeling significant atrocities as genocide to evade diplomatic, political, and legal consequences. Power asserts and implies that the United States had a role in the occurrence of the 20th-century genocides through its lack of political will to address such heinous crimes and failure of timely interventions, which, in turn, exacerbated human suffering, undermined the world’s moral authority, and inflicted irreversible damage on humanity.

Power’s sound and rational analysis and assertions are deep-rooted in rigorous scholarship and moral clarity, positioning her as a human rights and humanitarian intervention pioneer. Resonating as a call to conscience and serving as a policy framework for future decision-makers to avoid catastrophic atrocities, Power’s assertions in her esteemed book impacted people, policymakers, and leadership alike. However, the paradox of Power’s career emerged when she transitioned from academia to bureaucracy and public office at the federal level of governance.

Power, a self-proclaimed idealist per her recent book “The Education of an Idealist” published in 2019, encountered challenges that tested her values while serving as President Barack Obama’s U.S. Ambassador to the UN from 2013 to 2017, followed by President Joe Biden’s Administrator of USAID from 2021 to 2025. These roles demanded navigating the competing imperatives of moral conviction and statecraft, and her record reveals troubling inconsistencies.

While a federal bureaucrat, Power fell into the same trap she critiqued in her book as an academic; thus, using her esteemed book’s title, “A Problem from hell,” became one hell of a problem! It is as such because intellectuals switch from being objective academic researchers – and in Power’s case an idealist, too – to becoming subjective and realist politicians, policymakers, and federal bureaucrats seeking to implement their superior’s agendas regardless of their personal convictions and the morality of such agendas. Bureaucrats pursue the interest of the “state,” which sometimes comes at the expense of their personal beliefs. After leaving her position at the United Nations, Samantha Power took to social media in 2017 to tweet numerous apologies for the U.S. government under President Obama not recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Her apologies and admission of failing to acknowledge the Armenian genocide were striking in light of her earlier searing critiques in her book of the same actions she later followed as an ambassador. Armenian-Americans were expecting an acknowledgment of the genocide, not an apology for failing to do so.

Despite that, she had a second chance and a new opportunity to set the record straight and demonstrate the moral clarity she once championed when she was appointed USAID Administrator in 2021. During her tenure at the USAID, the Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) conflict broke out between Azerbaijan and Karabakh Armenians -and subsequently Armenia- in late 2020. According to an Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) statement in July 2024, “the spineless inaction of USAID Administrator Samantha Power during Azerbaijan’s blockade and ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh” exacerbated the situation and encouraged Azerbaijan to commit “genocidal ethnic cleansing of Artsakh’s entire Armenian population” because of USAID’s absence of acknowledging the dire humanitarian crisis unfolding before the international community. Additionally, USAID’s provision of $21 million in humanitarian aid for Armenian refugees, a fraction of the estimated $2 billion required, underscored the perceived inadequacy of the response.

It is evident that in almost a decade, Power fell into the same trap and committed the same irreparable damages twice: First during her tenure as U.S. Ambassador to the UN and second during her tenure at USAID. For the second time, Power failed her morals and ideals by her unwillingness to prevent the genocidal ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Karabakh. Her inaction towards Azerbaijan’s aggression mirrored the very patterns she had critiqued in her book earlier in 2002. Power’s dual failure of the Armenians has cast a shadow over her legacy.

Power’s career moral contradictions prompt a more thorough examination of intellectuals’ difficulties and challenges when assuming bureaucratic positions. As academics, intellectuals may be free to criticize and suggest bold ideas. However, when intellectuals become bureaucrats, they must frequently deal with the harsh realities of institutional inefficiency, political pressure, and compromise. It is still a conundrum whether intellectuals who become bureaucrats can balance their beliefs with government requirements or if they are destined to compromise their morals to further the state’s interests.

Power’s trajectory raises concerns about her legacy and that of any bureaucrat in her position. History will likely remember Power for her inadequate moral stances during critical and decisive moments that determined the fates of many people, which required strong, firm, and ethical leadership. In a world marked by constant and sometimes protracted conflicts causing endless human suffering and subsequent humanitarian crises, Power’s performance at the UN and USAID raises numerous ethical concerns about reconciling intellectual ethical principles with practice.

For Samantha Power, “A Problem from Hell” is a frightening paradox: how she went from being a vocal, idealist, and objective academic activist supporting valid human causes to becoming a bureaucrat trapped in the identical system she once criticized. One can only speculate whether she will use social media once more to regret her mistakes or if her legacy will serve as a sobering reminder of the disconnect between belief and action in the halls of politics and power. It is too late in either case. History will record Samantha Power’s hypocrisy as she failed the Armenian people and, consequently, her moral compass and ethical convictions twice.