Calling the “Star Trek” franchise “woke” is not far off from accusing the Atlantic Ocean of being wet. (Or, for that matter, to say that Klingons are slightly obsessed with honor.) But that’s exactly what’s happening from the likes of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller and other conservatives in response to the premiere of the science-fiction titan’s newest series, “Starfleet Academy.”
Last week, right-wing X account End Wokeness reacted to a clip from the new show with the comment: “Star Trek 2026… Beyond parody…” The upsetting clip in question features three women, two of them aliens, on the command bridge of a Federation starship, the USS Athena. This prompted Miller to snidely respond, “Tragic. But it’s not too late for Paramount+ to save the franchise. Step 1: Reconcile with William Shatner and give him total creative control.”
Miller and his spoilsport followers object, virulently, to the sincere progressive idealism on display in “Starfleet Academy,” the heir to one of the most valuable brands in TV history. To think there’s anything that needs saving belies how many light years off-base they are about the 10th live-action TV series since the franchise debuted in 1966. (There have also been three animated series and 14 full-length feature films.) Their performative rage also betrays a truth: None of these angry demands for anti-wokeness are coming from real Trekkies.
At its core, “Starfleet Academy” is more of what has made the franchise a multibillion-dollar success over six decades.
At its core, “Starfleet Academy” is more of what has made the franchise a multibillion-dollar success over six decades. Oscar-winning actor Holly Hunter stars as a quirky starship captain, joining the likes of Patrick Stewart, Kate Mulgrew and Anson Mount as dashing Starfleet skippers in creator Gene Roddenberry’s sci-fi adventure universe. The new show focuses on the titular school that produces future Starfleet officers, where Hunter’s Captain Nahla Ake serves as chancellor.
Roddenberry, a World War II veteran, envisioned the Federation as a galactic United Nations of planets that all worked together harmoniously to boldly go where no man — or woman, robot, etc. — has gone before. This egalitarian wish undergirds all of “Star Trek”s storytelling, even at times when it is being actively subverted. Born during the tumultuous 1960s, an era of escalating war, police brutality and horrific displays of bigotry, Roddenberry somehow brought forth this colorful, hourlong adventure about the nicest space explorers ever imagined. It is among the cringiest IP in fandom — earnest, corny and awesome.
After a successful big-screen relaunch in 2009, Paramount struggled to reintroduce “Star Trek”to TV and streaming platforms. “Star Trek: Discovery” tried to reinvent the entire franchise in 2017 with mixed results, and some interest even from conservatives at the outset though that eventually curdled. Other recent shows, such as “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds” and the animated “Star Trek: Lower Decks,” returned “Trek” to its roots with a few modern twists.
So why would a White House official choose to bring focus to a TV show rather than address rising grocery store prices, a failing immigration policy or threats of war with European allies? One reason for pivoting to TV criticism: MAGA Republicans often rely on theatrical social media dramas to distract from policy failures. Just turn up the noise about a TV show whenever too many people ask, “Why are my health insurance premiums tripling?”
Miller’s performative Trek hate could also be signaling to Paramount Plus’ new owners, Skydance CEO David Ellison and his billionaire father, Larry, both admirers of Rupert Murdoch’s conservative media empire. I shudder to imagine a world where they aim the photon torpedoes currently trained on CBS News at the franchise. (Get ready for Star Trek: ICE.)
Further, Miller’s suggestion that “Star Trek” should be handed over to 93-year-old William Shatner also confirms his lack of “Live Long and Prosper” bona fides. Shatner is a national treasure. His portrayal of Captain James T. Kirk exemplified positive mid-century masculinity, bringing to life a character who was swaggering and cocksure, but also compassionate and loyal.
Shatner cheekily responded to Miller’s post on Monday. “I am so on the same page with you @StepenM,” the nonagenarian replied on X, and went on to make softball jokes about characters wearing glasses in the 32nd century. He signed off with, “I am ready to assume command of the series.” Shatner, a Canadian, has leaned left for much of his life, though his current politics are a little harder to nail down. He has in the past railed against “social justice warrior” culture and the word “cisgender,” but last August, he embraced his LGBTQ+ fans at the largest Trekkie convention in the world.
“Star Trek” says, to steal from President Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural, that tomorrow belongs to our better angels.
And to reify only Shatner among the original cast is to ignore Nichelle Nichols, the actress and civil rights activist who played the confident and irreplaceable communications officer Lt. Uhura. Nichols counted Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a fan of her work, and was one half of the first interracial kiss on American television. The other half: William Shatner.
It was not always a fable about getting along. But the most memorable stories from the original series were highly entertaining morality tales about racism, the Cold War and technology that never preached. From the late Leonard Nimoy’s Commander Spock, I learned that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Commander Will Riker (Jonathan Frakes) of “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” taught me that real men play trombone even if it’s not widely seen as the most “masculine” instrument. And through the complexities of “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine,” viewers learned that diplomacy requires compromise, but that does not mean one should compromise their principles.
This isn’t to say that the franchise is beyond reproach. The original series is known for its high-brow sci-fi as well as deeply silly or heavy-handed turkeys. There were plenty of unbearably do-goodery episodes and entire seasons that were misfires. There were some big-screen bombs, too. (Please don’t talk to me about “Star Trek V: The Final Frontier,” which, for the record, was directed by none other than Shatner.)
Could “Starfleet Academy” fail to land its first season? Sure. It took several seasons for some of the most beloved series to find their footing. But these hits and misses aren’t a failure of “Star Trek’s”raison d’être, which is the dream of an end to hunger, poverty and greed — and of humanity’s continued evolution into a species that celebrates both the individual and the community.
“Star Trek” is unique in pop culture, a rare example of a futuristic utopia. Americans are far more inclined to watch sci-fi dystopias about how horrible things will get: “The Terminator,”“The Hunger Games,” the various predictions of post-apocalyptic warlords everywhere.
But “Star Trek” says, to steal from President Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural, that tomorrow belongs to our better angels. To love “Star Trek” is to hope, and authoritarians fear that virtue. They want people to be afraid, cowed, to nervously stare at their own feet. The hopeful, however, always look up to the stars.
