That is correct, it is both.

US soft power can influence international norms.

US agents not having access to travel devices means US international travelers can reduce their risk exposure. Travelers can chose not to visit countries that will search their devices. If the US searches phones, it is is much harder for a US traveler to manage the risk.

The US is in an extremely lucky geographical position; we're protected on the east and west by oceans, we only have one neighbor each to the north and south, and both of those neighbors are friendly. But as a result, we don't really know the languages or customs of other nations around the world well enough to do espionage; we're really not great at Human Intelligence (or HumInt). But we are the more technologically advanced nation, and our Signals Intelligence (or SigInt) capabilities are the best on earth by a wide margin. (Interesting tangent: Russia is the opposite, and it's mainly geography and demographics that ingrained a KGB, HumInt tradition so deeply in their culture. The Russian state kept conquering different groups as it expanded across Asia and has had to manage a massive number cultures, many with their own languages, in order to avoid revolts).

So, as much as I like the idea of being free to take my phone to another nation without my rigorous digital hygiene routine, I know that the US is never going to cast off its great defensive and offensive SigInt advantages. And I doubt this kind of case could ever make it past an appellate court, because every appellate judge knows that limiting Presidential power in any way immediately dashes any hopes of making it the running for a Supreme Court appointment.

> But as a result, we don't really know the languages or customs of other nations around the world well enough to do espionage

Where do you get that idea? Pretty sure there are several three-letter agencies in the US that would disagree with that statement.

Learning the language and customs of a foreign country to a deep enough level to fool even people looking for you into believing that you're a native doesn't seem like a remotely intractable problem.

Looking back on my statement in your quote, I concede; it is literally incorrect. We are absolutely willing to spend the cost to make programs that generate skilled HumInt operators, attract or ensnare local sources, and maintain intel alliances that enable us to do HumInt espionage. Our military doctrine essentially requires that we develop pipelines that can enable us to churn out competent linguists in any language [0].

My point was more that this isn't a deep part of our culture (the way it is in Russia), rather I think we spun up a lot of these programs after the national security apparatus failed to stop 9/11 or divert us away from a pointless war in Iraq. Based on the instant collapse of the Afghan government without US troop support, I can only conclude that we lacked sufficient HumInt capacity to understand that context well enough to form an enduring strategy.

So my point there is more that HumInt isn't one of our natural strengths, the way SigInt is.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi5taR18uZ8&t=836s

If we search foreigners phones, that means we are OK with our own phones getting searched too. If our foreign policy is creating a "rules based international order" which Blinken certainly seems to say a lot, then rules for thee but not for me is a clear violation of that principle. I don't want my phone searched at borders which means I don't want to search other peoples phones at the border, particularly without a warrant.

Border agents with unchecked discretionary power is also a slight against rule of law and I think warrants are a check on that power. Maybe they are more checked than I believe them to be or have less discretionary power than I believe them to have. I am open to the idea that I am wrong.

Entering a country as a foreigner is a privilege and not a right, but you neglect the fact that entering a country as a citizen of that country is a right and not a privilege.

There is absolutely a distinction to be made between a foreigner and a citizen and their respective personal properties.

> There is absolutely a distinction to be made between a foreigner and a citizen and their respective personal properties.

But that distinction is not relevant in this case. Case in point: your luggage.

Try using your status as a citizen to refuse your luggage to be inspected for contraband or taxable imports when returning to your home country from one with which it does not share a tax and customs union, and see how that goes.

> Entering a country as a foreigner is a privilege and not a right

We have the Visa application and interview process for that.

> There is absolutely a distinction to be made between a foreigner and a citizen and their respective personal properties.

Could you pinpoint this distincrion?

What would I be allowed to carry through US border as a citizen but not as a foreigner? Guns? Cocaine? Illegal french cheese?

I think you are resting in fallse comfort that your possesions are more protected than those of unwashed foreign masses.