Tell Them No
Silence, Compliance, Missiles, and Protests
With downcast eyes and a slow shake of his head, a senior officer quietly told me, “We can only tell them yes.”
It was early 2025. The directive to implement Trump’s “Iron Dome for America” Executive Order had just landed at the Pentagon. Modeled on Israel’s Iron Dome system for countering short range rockets and drones, the order called for providing a global missile shield for the United States.
The program envisioned a restart of the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative, better known as “Star Wars.” It promised “defense of the United States against ballistic, hypersonic, advanced cruise missiles, and other next-generation aerial attacks from peer, near-peer, and rogue adversaries.”
I was part of the team drafting the initial implementation plans. Technology had certainly changed since the Reagan era programs were canceled, but the incredibly ambitious nature of what would soon be rebranded as “Golden Dome” would leave the United States with another massive bill and lots of uncertainty. Adding gold-leaf does not change orbital mechanics. Still, we would do the best we could.
At one contentious internal meeting, I raised what I thought was a professional obligation and a critical question regarding a portion of the plan. I asked, “Have we told the administration officials that this is the highest cost, least technologically feasible, way of accomplishing their goal?” After more than two decades as a military astronautical engineer, working missile warning, space systems, and national security planning, I hoped experience would matter.
That’s when I was told no, the new political appointees at the Pentagon hadn’t heard, and wouldn’t hear, that assessment. Because all we could tell them was yes. I was stunned.
Our duty was simple: give our best advice, then execute lawful orders. Skipping the advice part is professional failure, not loyalty.
I did what I thought was my responsibility and pushed back on what I’d just been told. After the third try, the senior officer said, “Bree, I hear you, but the answer is no.” He was politely telling me to drop the issue.
Civilian control of the military is foundational to our democracy. But it does not mean insulation from professional advice. It requires leaders strong enough to hear hard truths and officers courageous enough to give them.
Military compliance with lawful orders is required. Silence about flawed strategy is not.
Amidst Trump’s lust for Greenland, our allies sent troops there to defend it from us. Reporting suggests that his rhetoric only cooled when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs outlined the real-world consequences of attacking an ally. Speaking truth to power can make a huge difference, whether done by another powerful individual, or by the collective response of the people.
Meanwhile, families at home are struggling with housing costs, childcare, and healthcare. We are told what we urgently need instead is a trillion-dollar missile shield against scenarios that deterrence through strong alliances and a dedicated military has managed, imperfectly but effectively, for generations.
Only weak leaders fear honest answers. Only insecure leaders demand yes.
What I experienced inside the Pentagon was not isolated.
Despite the administration’s purported focus on free speech, a deep chill had already descended over people’s willingness to use those rights, regardless of setting. I got private messages from people expressing they wished they could like or share a post or article, but fearing even that tiny exercise of their rights would get them sidelined or fired.
What this administration craves is silence and compliance, because debate on the merits of its arguments exposes its weaknesses.
And that’s where we come in. Force the debate.
This weekend, in Woodstock, VA, a group showed exactly what that looks like. It was the 52nd straight week they had been out protesting on an I-81 overpass. An organizer handed out red, white, and blue stickers with stars and stripes that said, “This all ends when enough of us say NO.”
Research into non-violent protests against authoritarian governments shows that when 3.5% of the population begins sustained protest against the government, change begins to seem inevitable. We’re not there yet. As this administration disregards the law, shield the powerful, fight reckless wars, and ignores affordability, the cries will grow.
While I still wore the uniform of this nation, I knew my ability to protest was limited, yet I made the effort within those bounds because it was the right thing to do. Eventually, because I respected the institution, I knew I had to salute smartly and carry on. That is no longer my role.
James Baldwin said, “I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” Loving America requires demanding better from it. So that’s what we need to show this administration.
Have the courage to speak out.
Be brave enough to say something much more powerful than yes.
This ends when we say no.
Say it loud.