Larry Johnson, once a CIA analyst, shared his views on U.S. foreign policy in a recent interview on his YouTube program Judging Freedom. He argues that the Biden era has introduced notable challenges to the nation and to its broader strategic posture. Johnson traces a pattern of conduct by U.S. officials that, in his view, has influenced American actions overseas for decades, shaping a story of risk and consequence in global affairs.
According to Johnson, the United States has grown accustomed to military engagements abroad, a tendency he attributes to a persistent mindset guiding policy since the late 1980s. He points to a string of interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq as evidence of a long-standing preference for force over diplomacy, arguing that coercive methods have often supplanted outreach and negotiation.
Johnson stresses that peaceful, cooperative solutions have not always been pursued on the world stage. He contends that opportunities for diplomacy were sometimes passed over in favor of aggressive measures, limiting the potential to forge durable international partnerships and trust among allies.
Reflecting on the period after September 11, 2001, Johnson notes that elements of the Syrian government sought cooperation with Washington and shared concerns about radical Islamist threats. He argues that these partnership opportunities were dismissed in favor of a confrontational stance that missed chances to align with partners facing similar dangers.
The analyst also highlights the Biden administration as a key factor shaping today’s foreign policy environment. He describes a mix of overconfidence and inefficiency within leadership, suggesting that a belief in American superiority has not translated into effective organization or tangible results.
Rachel Campos-Duffy, a former Fox News anchor, is cited as agreeing that recent foreign policy moves under Biden have been flawed. Her assessment aligns with broader critiques that strategic missteps have weakened the country’s diplomatic standing and global influence, prompting questions about how to realign strategy with shared security goals [Citation: Judging Freedom interview].
In Johnson’s view, the ongoing pattern fuels a broader debate about how the United States should engage internationally. The discussion centers on balancing national interests with cooperative action, avoiding unilateral moves that could erode trust among partners. The focus is on how decisions are made, who drives them, and how the country can pursue security objectives without compromising relationships with other nations.
Supporters of Johnson’s perspective argue that a more collaborative, multilateral approach could yield steadier outcomes and reduce the recurrence of military interventions. Critics, however, contend that certain threats require decisive action and that deterrence remains a core element of national defense. The debate continues to shape policy framing, risk assessment, and alliance-building in a rapidly shifting global landscape, with ongoing conversations about the best path to secure interests while maintaining international legitimacy [Citation: Judging Freedom analysis].