But in an online forum hosted on Nov. 4 by Fordham’s Center on National Security (CNS), experts said that two of the biggest threats today—climate change and the rise of authoritarianism abetted by technology—pose enormous challenges for citizens of every country on the globe.

“America’s Global Role: Today’s Reality, Tomorrow’s Challenges,” a virtual discussion moderated by center director Karen J. Greenberg, featured John Brennan, FCRH ’77, former CIA Director and CNS distinguished fellow for global security, and Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security advisor of the United States and author of After the Fall: Being American in the World We’ve Made (Penguin/Random House, 2021)

Brennan said that a four-decade career in national security had trained him to always be alert for new threats, but that this is genuinely a novel time in human history. For starters, the notion that different country’s fates are now intertwined in ways they didn’t use to be has been made evident by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Technology has changed our world fundamentally, and the accelerated pace of technological developments is certainly enhancing military capabilities and concerns about the digital domain,” he said.

“I think we need to make sure this administration and future administrations focus not just on the headlines du jour, but on those more enduring, strategic issues such as climate change.”

Rhodes agreed and said that climate change has the potential to exacerbate other problems, such as migration. He is especially concerned about the future of democracy, which he said is being attacked in two ways with the aid of technology: the capacity to spread misinformation, and the capacity for mass surveillance.

“Twenty years ago, the number of people in this country who could believe that Donald Trump won the 2020 election, or that the world is governed by a cabal of sex traffickers, was inherently limited. Now you can have circumstances where like 45% of the country believes something that is just not true because they’re living in a particular information ecosystem enabled by social media and technology,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Chinese government’s clampdown on the Uyghur population region in the Xinjiang province illustrates how governments can use big data to monitor everything their citizens are doing, and use that to exert control over them.

“That’s new. Even the police states of old did not have that capacity,” Rhodes said.

Pressed to pick one area of the world that concerns him most, Brennan said China is definitely at the top.

“China has a global vision, and it’s very strategic in how it implemented its polices and aims,” he said.

The wide-ranging, hour-long conversation touched on everything from Afghanistan, to the Middle East, to the threats the United States faces internally—particularly from authoritarianism.

To watch the entire conversation, click below:

The fundraiser? An online auction, the third such event hosted by the Fordham College Alumni Association (FCAA), with a novel twist this year: celebrity alumni. Several offered virtual face time to the highest bidder, helping to propel the event far beyond its usual total.

The auction “gets bigger and better every year,” with all proceeds going toward scholarships and grants for students, said Debra Caruso Marrone, FCRH ’81, the association’s president.

It’s one of several events sponsored by the FCAA each year, complementing the broader efforts of the Fordham University Alumni Association, the Office of Alumni Relations, and other groups that serve students and the alumni community.

Founded in 1905, the FCAA is the University’s oldest alumni organization, and primarily serves Fordham College at Rose Hill students and alumni.

Contacting Celebrity Alumni

The idea of featuring celebrity alumni in December’s auction was driven in part by the pandemic, which put the kibosh on, say, auctioning off event tickets. “We really had to pivot,” said Christa Treitmeier-Meditz, FCRH ’85, who spearheaded the effort to reach out to various prominent alumni.

In the end, they were able to auction off a virtual comedy writing lesson with Saturday Night Live writer Streeter Seidell, FCRH ’05 (someone bought that for his wife, an aspiring comedy writer, Treitmeier-Meditz said). They also got help from some prominent alumni thespians: Golden Globe winner Dylan McDermott, FCLC ’83, contributed a virtual meet, and Golden Globe winner and former Oscar nominee Patricia Clarkson, FCLC ’82, contributed a virtual master class and a post-pandemic in-person engagement—dinner out and tickets to the next Broadway show she appears in.

People also contributed various items, memorabilia, or experiences, such as a master cooking class or a trip around Manhattan by yacht. “It’s everything and anything,” Treitmeier-Meditz said. “The Fordham alumni community is very generous.”

Other planned events were canceled due to the pandemic lockdown last year: a sit-down for a dozen alumni with John Brennan, FCRH ’77, former CIA director and counterterrorism adviser to President Barack Obama, and an event with sportscasters Michael Kay, FCRH ’82, and Mike Breen, FCRH ’83.

Through such events, the association has raised money for various funds, including a summer internship fund for journalism majors, recently renamed for Jim Dwyer, FCRH ’79, the New York Times columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner who died in 2020. A new scholarship fund named for Joseph M. McShane, S.J., president of Fordham, is for students who reach new heights of academic achievement after arriving at the University.

The association provides other important support such as funding for undergraduate research and for student travel, noted Maura Mast, Ph.D., dean of Fordham College at Rose Hill. “I’m so pleased to see how that support has grown over the past several years,” she said. “I am grateful for their commitment to the college, to our alumni, and to the larger Fordham family.”

The association’s Giving Day gift—a matching gift—was split between two scholarship funds: the FCAA Endowed Legacy Scholarship, a need-based scholarship for legacy students, and the Rev. George J. McMahon, S.J., Endowed Scholarship, awarded to students at Fordham College at Rose Hill and the Gabelli School of Business.

Serving on the board is a labor of love, Caruso Marrone said. “We’re doing something good: we’re raising funds, we’re helping students go through school,” in addition to bringing alumni together at events, she said. “The members of our board [are] of various age groups, various backgrounds, various careers, [and] we all come together and do this work and enjoy it immensely. We have just a great group of people who are dedicated to Fordham.”

“One of the reasons I was attracted to join the intelligence community was because it is designed to be independent and objective, not partisan,” said Brennan, a former CIA director and assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism.

In a wide-ranging conversation on Zoom with Samantha Power, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Brennan covered everything from the 2020 election and current threats against the country to things he would have done differently during his time at the CIA. The talk was timed around the release of his new memoir, Undaunted: My Fight Against America’s Enemies, At Home and Abroad (Celedon Books, 2020).

When it comes to service, he recalled how once a month, he administered an oath of allegiance to brand new CIA officers.

“I would tell them, ‘Working in the Washington D.C. area in national security, you’re going to be the target of the wrath of those from one side or the other. You need to really carry out your responsibilities as best as you can, because the American people depend on it,” said Brennan, who is a distinguished fellow for global security at Fordham’s Center on National Security.

In fact, Brennan said that he felt that encouraging people to consider public service was so important, he wrote the memoir even though President Donald Trump refused to grant him access to personal records from his time at the agency.

“I could have pursued some type of litigation or appeal process that I think would just have dragged it out,” he said. “I decided to move forward and try to recollect as much as I could and try to talk to some of my former colleagues.”

In recounting his career, Brennan noted that his intense hatred for partisan politics made his entry into the CIA more eventful than necessary.

In the memoir, he describes how he was required to submit to a lie detector test before being admitted to the agency. Asked by an agent administering the polygraph test whether he’d lied recently, he admitted he’d lied to his observant mother about attending Mass.

That was embarrassing enough, he said, but then he was asked whether he’d supported any groups dedicated to overthrowing the American government. Brennan said he flashed back to 1976, when he’d voted for Gus Hall, who was running for president as a Communist. It was his first time voting for president, he said, and he’d already become so turned off by partisan politics, that he cast a vote for Hall as a form of protest.

“I knew that if I were to say no to the polygrapher with that on my mind, the machine would have gone bonkers. So, I decided to reveal that in a very anxious manner. I didn’t know how he was going to react to it,” he said, noting that he assured the agent that it was a one-off protest.

“I think he saw the look of fear in my face, and he said, ‘It is your right as an American citizen to vote for whoever you want, and that will not be held against you in anyway on your application.’ I just felt this great surge of elation. … [It] really reinformed my determination to work for the CIA.”

He credited his perspective and worldview to his parents, who immigrated to the United States from Ireland.

“My father, who came to the United States at the age of 28 in 1948, always impressed upon my brother, my sister, and me just how special it as to be an American citizen. He said he strove his entire life to come to the land of freedom and opportunity, and we should never take for granted that we’re American citizens,” he said.

“My parents were very, very instrumental in making sure that I had a north star where honesty, decency, dignity, and understanding the difference between right and wrong guided me.”

To watch the conversation, visit the center’s webpage.

Brennan, a distinguished fellow on global security at the center, acknowledged that Soleimani was a “principal nemesis” of his while he was director of the CIA and that the general represented a threat to U.S. security, but he did not see a legal basis for the strike.

‘We’re Not at War with Iran’

Brennan made a clear distinction between an “unlawful combatant,” such as the leader of a terrorist group, and an individual acting on behalf of a sovereign state, such as a military general. He said that according to the Geneva Convention and “a lot of other important foundations,” a non-state actor is not afforded the same protections as a state actor working on behalf of a sovereign state.

“We’re not at war with Iran,” said Brennan. “We have struck Al-Qaeda terrorists numerous times, but they are unlawful combatants. I see no equivalency, either in …  a domestic or international law, that striking a government official of a foreign country that you’re not in war with has a legal basis.”

Indeed, Brennan cited congressional hearings held in the 1970s that found that the CIA was involved in several “extra-legal” killings. The hearings resulted in an executive order passed by President Gerald Ford in 1976 that banned the assassination of state actors. He added that by the current administration’s rationale, the U.S. could take out the head of the Russian Federal Security Service because that agency is involved in nefarious activities.

“[The killing of Soleimani] certainly is very dissimilar from the strikes against unlawful combatants belonging to Al-Qaeda or any of the other terrorist groups that are in fact named in the authorization for the use of military force that has been in existence since 2001,” he said.

Drone Technology: Advances and Ethical Questions

That Soleimani was killed by a CIA drone, a technology used in a program supported by Brennan, was not lost on the audience, the interviewers, or Brennan himself. Dilanian asked him about the significant advances in the technology that enabled the killing. Brennan said two factors have played a large role in making such stealth and exact attacks possible. One is that today everyone leaves behind “digital dust” from their cell phones, credit cards, and from closed-circuit cameras watching them.

“It is not difficult at all to learn, through legal means, and then through government means, where somebody is,” he said.

Second, he said, is the “increasing refinement and advancements in technology about putting the ordinance on target … within inches.” And if that person moves, as was the case with Soleimani’s caravan at the Baghdad airport where he was killed, a missile can be steered in that direction at the last minute. He added that with machine learning, there is an additional ability to correlate all that information at the speed of light.

“It raises very serious questions about at what point should those actions that result from the machine learning and the ingestion of data require human intervention?” he said.

He said that in the case of the Obama administration, for every decision that was made to strike a terrorist, there was a rigorous review that had to determine that there was no other way to mitigate the threat that that person posed, except by the use of lethal force.

“Before striking that individual, there had to be near-certainty that that was the person, near certainty that there’d be no civilian casualties, there was no possibility of capture, by either U.S. forces or by local forces … in order for it to be an authorized strike,” he said, adding that no such criteria have been clearly articulated by the Trump administration in the Soleimani killing.

Concern About Retaliation

Brennan admitted that the strike was a significant blow to the Iranian high command, but he warned that “the concept of an eye for an eye” is very strong in Iran. Despite a retaliatory strike by the Iranians on a U.S. airbase in Iraq that resulted in more than 60 traumatic brain injuries of U.S. soldiers, there may still be yet another attack to come.

“We know that the Iranians have long memories, we know that they can be patient, and so I believe that there are some in Iran who will want to avenge Soleimani’s death with blood, not with brain injuries,” he said.

Greenberg noted that in attacking Suleimani, the Trump administration used the authorization for use of military force (AMF) from Congress set in 2001 and 2002 for those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and for attacking Iraq, respectively.

“Given that the scenario you’ve just laid out for the decisions that might be in front of the White House coming down the pipe, like this incident, do we need a new AMF, and if so, how would we begin to think about its focus, its limits?” she asked.

Congressional Authorization in the Trump Era

Brennan said that his views have changed on Congressional authorization since the Obama administration, when he thought that their approval constrained the president’s ability to act swiftly, such as in the case of Obama’s effort to close Guantanamo Bay prison.

“I felt that Congress’ intervention was really counterproductive to the ability of the chief executive and the commander in chief to carry out responsible policies,” he said. “Now during the Trump years, I feel as though, ‘My goodness, where’s Congress?’”

Yet, he said, the nation needs to be cautious in “reshaping the architecture of the federal government” in response to an unpredictable Trump presidency.

“He clearly is an anomaly, and he clearly is doing some things that I think would not have been expected of anybody that we thought would make their way to the Oval Office,” he said. “He’s trampling a lot of the foundations of our democratic republic, and I think he’s also demonstrating a real lawlessness. And so that’s the struggle now. What do you do when you have a lawless president? I would put the Soleimani killing in that bucket.”

He said the challenge would be to ensure that the mechanisms of government remain flexible enough to survive into the future, though he remains troubled that the Republicans in Congress have “checked their principles at the door.”

Doing What’s Right

When the conversation turned to impeachment, Brennan said, “I would love to be able to just sit in on a Fordham Law School class on the issue of ethics and defense attorneys,” noting that these topics are front and center in the hearings.

“There’s a cravenness right now in Washington among politicians that just refuse to do what is right. And then you can have very respected attorneys who are well known, some lawyers with big egos, to go up and do anything possible to get somebody off.”

During the question and answer period, David Myers, Ph.D., professor of history, asked if Brennan thought that the unwavering support from Republicans in Congress might stop future “good-minded, good-hearted intelligence servants” from coming forward as whistleblowers in the future.

Brennan said that he certainly hopes that will not be the case.

“I sure as hell hope they speak up. And it can be costly and people are going to come after you. It’s been costly for me. People come after me, but sometimes, maybe it’s my Fordham training or my Irish temper or any number of those things, but I feel that I have no choice but to speak out because what’s happening now is wrong. And if you are a person in the intelligence community and you see things wrong, speak up and speak out because it’s the right thing to do.”

During his opening remarks, Bobbitt outlined three “unrealistic” courses of action the United States could take in the crisis—continued pursuit of diplomacy, military intervention, and tacit acceptance of a nuclear North Korea—before introducing a fourth option. According to Bobbitt, the Trump administration should seek to induce a Helsinki Accords-like nuclear guarantee for the North Korean regime from China, ensuring the borders and governments of all states of the region. Getting under China’s “nuclear umbrella” now could provide North Korea its only chance for long-term regime survival, once its small nuclear arsenal becomes vulnerable to rapidly advancing first strike technologies, Bobbitt explained.

Kim’s recent meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing is an important indicator that North Korea could be receptive to utilizing China as an interlocutor, Bobbitt added. If a nuclear agreement occurred, Kim would accomplish something neither his father nor grandfather achieved—ending the Korean War.

“I can’t say I have any confidence this proposal will be accepted, or that if it is accepted it will lead to aggressive denuclearization,” conceded Bobbitt, the co-chair of the Program on National Security Law at Columbia Law School. “What I can say with confidence is the way we’re heading now is most unpromising and that if we have a summit and it does break down, there will be more momentum for use of force.”

Brennan shared the same concern, notably that hawks within the Trump administration would call for immediate military action if North Korea didn’t agree to denuclearization terms. Incoming National Security Advisor John Bolton wrote a Wall Street Journal editorial in February advocating for a preemptive strike in North Korea.

“There is no good military option with North Korea,” warned Brennan, the distinguished fellow on global security for the Center on National Security. “You’re going to lose hundreds of thousands, if not more, with some type of military conflict.”

Bobbitt’s proposal of a guarantee between North Korea and China should be given “serious consideration,” Brennan added. Otherwise, allowing North Korea to become a de facto nuclear state sends “very bad signals” to our allies in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as other countries that would seek to gain nuclear capabilities.

Another potential concern surrounding the summit, according to both speakers, is that President Trump will impulsively agree to a deal that will sell out Japan and South Korea, longtime U.S. allies, in order to win some type of short-term gratification.

“I hope we’re not receding from the global responsibility we’ve held the last 75 years, in terms of being a champion of liberal democratic order,” said Brennan, before lamenting that the United States has already lost significant ground in the region to authoritarian China due to the Trump administration’s abandonment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership—and could stand to lose much more when Trump meets Kim.

At present, America should be more focused on the risk of South Korea requesting the United States leave the Korean peninsula and renounce their alliance, in order to prevent war, rather than a potential nuclear strike of the U.S. mainland, Bobbitt said.

“Time is not on our side,” he said. “I think we’ve wasted a good deal of it already on wishful thinking.”

—Ray Legendre

According to John Brennan, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), it also presented an opportunity to confront Russia.

In his keynote address at the Fordham-FBI 2018 International Conference on Cyber Security on Jan. 10, Brennan, FCRH ’77, who served as CIA director from 2013 to January 2017, said he told a top Russian intelligence leader in 2016 that Russian meddling in the nation’s election would “backfire” because all Americans would be “outraged” by the country’s actions.

“Clearly there are some Americans who say, ‘Let’s not worry about that,’ which is very, very unfortunate,” he said, after noting that “it’s incontrovertible that the Russians did try to interfere” in the election.

“It’s not just the Russians that pose a challenge in that context as far as our future elections and election processes,” he said. “We’re vulnerable to other attempts—whether they be domestic or foreign.”

Speaking to a room of prominent cybersecurity experts and law enforcement professionals, Brennan called for a statutory provision that would require directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the CIA to disclose any critical cybersecurity threats ahead of U.S. elections.

“I think it will take away some of that uncertainty and discretion,” he said.

A disturbing trend

Brennan sees the increasing collaboration that exists between foreign intelligence services and hacking organizations, or non-state actors, as a developing threat to the United States. In his remarks, he mentioned the recent arrests of hackers who teamed up with Russian intelligence officers for the 2014 cyberattack on Yahoo!.

He called the alliance a “disturbing, frustrating trend” for U.S. intelligence administrators who are trying to track down malign actors in the cyber environment.

“[Foreign intelligence organizations] are leveraging that capability outside in order to augment what they already have,” said Brennan. “[What’s] even more important for them [is]to attenuate the forensic trail and the connection between what they do, and who, actually, is carrying it out—as opposed to who is directing it.”

For Brennan, who currently serves as a distinguished fellow for global security at the Center on National Security at Fordham Law, striking a balance between privacy and security continues to present major challenges for the FBI and other intelligence units that are trying to curb cybercrimes.

As the world’s dependence on automation, artificial intelligence, and digital currency grows rapidly, he stressed that there needs to be unprecedented partnerships between private and public-sector entities, as well as top professionals and futurists in science, technology, and other disciplines in the United States.

“There really needs to be a better sense of exactly how the government is going to fill its responsibility to keep its citizens safe and secure and carry out the rule of law in this environment where, in some respects, it’s like the Wild Wild West,” he said.

More Coverage from ICCS Day 2

Getting Through to Google

Panelists Demonstrate Danger of Electromagnetic Pulses

Will It Take Another 9/11 to Wake Us Up?

Brennan, who served as C.I.A. director from 2013 to January 2017, participated in an hourlong conversation with Washington Post columnist and best-selling author David Ignatius to mark his Center on National Security fellowship. Earlier in the day, Brennan met with Fordham Law faculty and taught two classes.

Brennan’s fellowship is consistent with Fordham Law’s commitment to training students to engage with national security issues in the intelligence community, law enforcement, and government, and the Law School’s long tradition of public service, Dean Matthew Diller said in his welcoming remarks. Diller praised the Center on National Security, a nonpartisan educational think tank directed by Karen J. Greenberg, as the “centerpiece” of the School’s internationally recognized efforts in the field.

“When we spoke several months ago, Director Brennan explained to me the urgency he feels about educating the next generation—and the public more generally—about the role of the United States as a beacon of democracy and freedom around the world and the challenges we face,” Diller said. He also highlighted Fordham University’s strong contributions to the intelligence community, both in the form of Brennan and William J. Casey, a 1934 Fordham University graduate who served as CIA director under President Ronald Reagan.

Brennan spent 33 years in public service and worked under six presidents—three Republicans and three Democrats—prior to coming to Fordham Law. He observed that the tone coming from the Trump White House is “inconsistent with what this country is all about and the signals we should be sending to the global community.” Further, he declared the justifications Trump offered last week for not certifying the Iran Nuclear Deal were “either willfully ignorant on the issues or willfully misleading.”

Trump’s decisions to reject the previous administration’s agreements—on the Iran Deal and others such as the Paris Agreement and Trans-Pacific Partnership—have longtime U.S. allies and partners questioning the value of America’s word and lamenting that Trump’s America First policy strategy actually means “America first, second, and third,” Brennan said. Meanwhile, U.S. adversaries such as China and Russia are eyeing new opportunities to step into the leadership void. Trump’s anti-Iran Deal stance also lessens the likelihood North Korea would make a nuclear deal with the Trump administration, or any subsequent administration, because it sees that deal could be ripped up as soon as the new president arrived, Brennan explained.

Brennan also called into question the wisdom of Trump’s use of Twitter to taunt North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un, and estimated the likelihood of military conflict between the U.S. and North Korea at between 20 and 25 percent. He cautioned that this did not necessarily mean the situation would turn into a nuclear conflict, and added that he hoped the Trump administration used available back channels to come to a peaceful resolution.

“Thank our lucky stars for Defense Secretary (James) Mattis and (Secretary of State) John Kelly and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joe Dunford,” Brennan said, calling them “governors on the instincts and impulsivity of the president.”

Earlier this year, Brennan criticized Trump for denigrating the intelligence community and questioning its integrity in the wake of public reports that Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election. Brennan reiterated on Wednesday that the C.I.A. knew in the summer of 2016 that the highest levels of Russian government, under the direction of President Vladimir Putin, had launched a campaign aimed to undermine the election with the goal of enhancing Trump’s prospects.

Brennan recalled an August 4 conversation with Alexander Bortnikov, director of the Russian Federal Security Bureau, in which he warned his counterpart that interfering with the election would backfire and be met with outrage from the American people. In hindsight, Brennan reflected that this was a bad analysis on his part because it seems like many people aren’t concerned about election tampering.

Whether American citizens realize it or not, cybersecurity remains a substantial threat from state and non-state actors, Brennan said. As C.I.A. director, Brennan called for the United States to establish a major independent commission to answer how the nation intends to protect itself from cyber threats and to debate how best to balance security threats with civil liberties. He envisioned this commission to be the cybersecurity equivalent of the Manhattan Project.

“I am hoping we’re not going to wait for a 9/11 equivalent in cyber to take the steps that are necessary,” Brennan said.

In his role with Fordham Law, Brennan will contribute his expertise and insights as a leading practitioner in national security to the Center on National Security’s mission of bringing to public attention issues of national security, foreign policy, governance, and the rule of law. He will participate in conferences, workshops, and other events hosted by the center.

He also plans to serve as a mentor to students who wish to know more about government service and professional opportunities in the field of national security.

“For the way the center has evolved over the past years, always trying to open up a conversation for the people who are most thoughtful, most in front on these issues, most responsible for what happens in Washington and around the world, and most generous with who they are as human beings, he makes perfect sense here,” Greenberg said during her introductory remarks.

—Ray Legendre

He comes to Fordham after 33 years of government service, most recently as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2013–2017). His other positions have included Deputy National Security Advisor, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and founding Director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

In a New York Times story announcing the appointment, Brennan said:

“I used to take the bus from my home in New Jersey then two subway transfers to the Bronx to go to school,” he said. “I wanted to give back to Fordham because I felt my time there was so important to me.”

As a Distinguished Fellow at the center, Director Brennan will contribute his expertise and insights as a leading practitioner in national security to the Center on National Security’s mission of bringing to public attention issues of national security, foreign policy, governance, and the rule of law. He will participate in conferences, workshops, and other events hosted by the center.

He also plans to serve as a mentor to students who wish to know more about government service and professional opportunities in the field of national security.

The Center on National Security was established in 2011 as a non-partisan think tank devoted to issues of national and global security. It is headed by Karen J. Greenberg, its founding director.

Director Brennan follows a long line of prominent experts and practitioners who have spent time as Fellows at the Center, including terrorism expert Peter Bergen, New Yorker writer Lawrence Wright, and former NYPD and Pentagon official, Michael Sheehan, and many others in the fields of journalism, government, and the arts.

Together Director Brennan and the Center on National Security look forward to enhancing public education and understanding on some of the most pressing issues of our times.

During the visit to Fordham Law’s Presidential Succession Clinic, taught by Professor John Feerick and Adjunct Professor John Rogan, Brennan talked with students about national security considerations related to presidential succession. Drawing on his current position as well as his time in the Obama White House as assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, Brennan fielded questions on clinic topics such as the line of succession, contingency planning in the White House, and methods for handling a case of vice presidential disability.

Presidential disabilities are a major focus of the clinic’s work. When the president disputes that a disability exists against the conclusion of the vice president and a majority of the cabinet, the 25th Amendment makes Congress the final arbiter. The students questioned Director Brennan about such a scenario.

“Director Brennan was concerned that too much of a public proceeding could raise national security concerns, what with the president’s personal records being at issue,” said Jonathan Coppola ’17, a student in the clinic. “One issue we were dealing with was whether the succession proceeding should be completely public or allow some closed-door proceedings, and he recommended making those national security concerns a main priority.”

The Presidential Succession Clinic deals extensively with the 25th Amendment. Feerick advised Congress in drafting the amendment, assisting lawmakers like Senator Birch Bayh, the amendment’s principal author. The amendment was ratified 50 years ago this February.

Students from the clinic said that the amendment’s architects intentionally left some of its procedures ambiguous in an effort to limit its complexity and increase its chances of ratification. By offering clarifications for the amendment’s remaining ambiguities, Feerick’s students aim to strengthen its role in safeguarding government stability.

The clinic continues Fordham Law’s history with presidential succession, which started with Feerick’s 1963 Fordham Law Review article on the topic and includes a 1976 symposium on the vice presidency, a 2010 symposium on the adequacy of the succession system, and a first clinic that published a comprehensive report in 2012.

Brennan was among several distinguished clinic visitors, including Second Circuit Chief Judge Robert Katzmann and former Homeland Security Advisor to President George W. Bush Frances Townsend, who leant important context to the clinic’s work over the semester.

“Director Brennan talked for well over an hour,” said clinic student Timothy Deal ’17. “Based on what he said, it was clear he had read a lot about the 25th Amendment. In his position he obviously has to be conversant with many important areas, and it’s impressive that he would take the time to talk to a bunch of law students.”

After the visit had concluded, students said that Brennan made a significant impression.

“There’s this idea that the director of the CIA is this very secretive, imposing figure,” said clinic student Marcella Jayne ’18. “But you meet him and he’s warm, friendly, and approachable.”

On the subject of transitioning between administrations, Brennan counseled cooperation and transparency.

“Another thing that Director Brennan stressed was the importance of a well-run transition team and how important it is for the transition of administrations to be efficient in a well-prepared way,” said Coppola.

A distinguished alumnus of Fordham University and one of the highest-ranking intelligence officials of the U.S. government, Brennan and his reputation preceded him.

“As an undergraduate, I studied Middle Eastern politics under Professor John Entelis, who Director Brennan had when he was a student,” said Coppola. “It was an honor to meet such a legendary alumnus and a pleasure to have the opportunity at Fordham.”

Brennan spoke to a capacity crowd of 165 people on Sept. 23rd at the club’s annual event which brings together D.C.-area alumni and friends to benefit the Club’s scholarship fund. The scholarship fund helps deserving students from the Washington, DC area attend Fordham.

One day after his 59th birthday, Brennan paused from his hectic schedule to take a bit of time for nostalgia, recalling for his fellow Rams how Fordham’s Jesuits made a significant difference in his life by instilling a love of learning.

“They opened my mind to the wonders of the world beyond our borders and encouraged me to think deeply about what I believe, as well as why I believe it,” he said. “True understanding only comes from engaging with the world.”

“Education was more than turning us into straight A students, it was about guiding us on a journey,” he continued. “I didn’t realize it at the time […] but Fordham was preparing me for a life of public service.”

The Fordham Alumni Chapter of Washington, D.C. hosted the evening. Michael Sheeran, S.J., president of Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, gave the invocation. Chapter president Deanna Howes, FCRH ’07, introduced and presented Brennan with the award. US Representative Steve Stockman and Representative Paul Broun joined in the chorus of “Happy Birthday” along with author Alice McDermott and her husband David Armstrong; former trustee Mark Tuohey, LAW ’73; trustee Ed Stroz, GSB ’79; and President’s Council member Tom Kelly III.

The McMahon award was established in 1962 in honor of the late senator’s work to ensure civilian, not military, control of nuclear weapons development and to cultivate peaceful uses of atomic energy. Previous recipients include former news anchor Katie Couric, Mother Teresa, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Walter Cronkite, Colin Powell, and Joseph O’Hare, S.J., former president of Fordham.

John Brennan, FCRH ’77, was confirmed by the United States Senate to head the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on March 7.

Brennan was nominated by President Barack Obama to head the CIA on Jan. 7.  A 25-year veteran of the agency, Brennan is currently the deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security.

“John Brennan’s career of service and extraordinary record has prepared him to be an outstanding director of the CIA,” said a White House statement.

“Since 9/11, he has been on the front lines in the fight against al-Qaeda. Over the past four years, he has been involved in virtually all major national security issues and will be able to hit the ground running at CIA.”

During his time working for the administration, Brennan has been involved in variety of security issues, from the 2011 raid that killed 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, to counterterrorism efforts in Somalia and Yemen.

Previously, he served as Middle East station chief for the CIA in Saudi Arabia and as chief of staff for agency director George Tenet. He was soon named CIA deputy executive director. After 9/11, Brennan established the precursor to the National Counterterrorism Center, tasked with coordinating international intelligence from myriad agencies.

It was during his time at Fordham that Brennan, a political science major at Rose Hill, became interested in Islamic culture. He traveled first to Indonesia as a freshman, then to Egypt his junior year, where he studied at the American University in Cairo and learned to speak Arabic.

Brennan met with Fordham students and staff before the University’s 167th Commencement in May. Photo by Chris Taggart

The experience gave him a personal connection to Islam and to Muslims at home and abroad. Brennan has publicly objected to the use of the word “jihadists” to describe terrorists.

“Jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam,” he has said, stressing that violence and murder are not condoned by the religion.

For his unyielding commitment to protect the United States, and his three decades of public service, he was presented an honorary degree at Fordham’s 167th Commencement on May 19, 2012. In accepting the honor, he recalled that his studies resonated with him to this day.

“The textbooks I read and the papers I wrote in John Banja’s philosophy class have traveled and remained with me over the past 35 years,” he said.

“I have reread them many times as I have struggled with the real-world application of the concepts that I learned about as a 20-year-old.”

Brennan becomes the second Fordham alumnus to head the CIA, following William J. Casey, FCRH ’34, who ran the agency from 1981 to 1987.