The New York Times editorial board, often supportive of the White House, wrote that his address “did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left.”

Obama “provided little new insight into how he plans to lead in the next two years,” the Times wrote, “and many still doubt that he fully appreciates the leverage the United States has even in a changing world.”

The Times also continued its criticism of Obama on transparency on targeted killings and intelligence, saying his call for more transparency was “ludicrous” given the administration’s unwillingness to give “even minimal disclosures.”

The Wall Street Journal, far more accustomed to criticizing the president on foreign policy, said Obama’s speech was marked less by what he said and more by what he left out — the pivot to Asia, relations with Russia, a defense of the administration’s Syria policy, a discussion of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and other issues.

“We know that no foreign policy speech can cover the entire world,” the Journal concluded. “But listening to Mr. Obama trying to assemble a coherent foreign policy agenda from the record of the past five years was like watching Tom Hanks trying to survive in ‘Cast Away’: Whatever’s left from the wreckage will have to do.”

The Washington Post editorial said the president’s “binding of U.S. power places Mr. Obama at odds with every U.S. president since World War II.”

“President Obama has retrenched U.S. global engagement in a way that has shaken the confidence of many U.S. allies and encouraged some adversaries,” the board said, attacking the president for resorting to rhetoric instead of adjusting policy.

The Post also said that Obama provided “scant comfort” to those concerned about his policies on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Ukraine.