RT STAR TREK UNDER FIRE: Elon Musk and Stephen Miller Ignite a Culture War — But Critics Say It’s Built on a Fundamental Misunderstanding 😳🚀

While Patrick Stewart is now as strongly associated with Star Trek as William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, his casting as Captain Jean-Luc Picard in Star Trek: The Next Generation raised some eyebrows in 1987 because… he didn’t have a full head of hair. When a reporter commented that, “Surely they would have cured baldness by the 24th century,” series creator Gene Roddenberry responded, “In the 24th century, they wouldn’t care.”

Roddenberry died in 1991, but if he was still alive, he’d probably have a similar response to the criticisms leveled by Elon Musk, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, and others against Star Trek: Starfleet Academy, which premiered on Paramount Plus on Jan. 15. “Turns out they banned Ozempic and LASIK in the future lol” the world’s richest man commented on X in response to a clip showing Captain Nahla Ake (Holly Hunter) wearing reading glasses and standing alongside first officer Lura Thok (Gina Yashere) and Lt. Rork (Tricia Black) on the bridge of the U.S.S. Athena. The series has also been review bombed for being too “woke.”

For nearly six decades, Star Trek has been more than a science-fiction franchise. It has been a cultural manifesto — a vision of a future in which humanity overcomes racism, nationalism, and scarcity to explore the stars together. Yet in recent days, that iconic vision has been pulled into a fresh culture war, after Elon Musk and conservative political figure Stephen Miller publicly criticized modern Star Trek for being “too woke,” “ideological,” and disconnected from its original spirit.

According to many critics, however, the controversy rests on a simple but profound problem: Musk and Miller appear to have fundamentally misunderstood what Star Trek has always been about.

The Comments That Sparked the Fire

Musk, a tech billionaire who frequently cites science fiction as inspiration, mocked recent Star Trek series for prioritizing diversity, gender politics, and social messaging over exploration and technological optimism. Miller went further, framing the franchise as having been captured by progressive ideology and repurposed as political propaganda.

Their remarks quickly spread online, resonating with audiences frustrated by what they see as “woke culture” dominating Hollywood storytelling.

But the backlash was swift.

Star Trek Was ‘Woke’ Long Before the Word Existed

Media historians and longtime fans were quick to point out an inconvenient truth: Star Trek has never been politically neutral.

When the original series premiered in 1966, it was already radical:

• Lieutenant Uhura, a Black woman, held a prominent command role during the height of the U.S. civil rights movement.
• The show featured one of television’s first interracial kisses.
• It imagined a post-scarcity future with no money, where people worked for knowledge and self-improvement rather than survival.
• It repeatedly critiqued militarism, imperialism, racism, and authoritarianism.

In other words, Star Trek didn’t “become political” recently — it always was.

Aesthetic Admiration vs. Ideological Reality

Critics argue that figures like Musk and Miller engage with Star Trek on a surface level: starships, uniforms, decisive captains, sleek technology. What they ignore is the franchise’s core philosophy — a deeply humanistic, internationalist, and progressive worldview.

The irony is striking. The future imagined in Star Trek — one without poverty, rigid borders, or ethnic hierarchies, where diversity is treated as a strength — directly contradicts many of the political positions Miller has championed and the hyper-individualist rhetoric Musk often embraces.

Culture Wars and the Fear of Losing Symbols

The Star Trek debate reflects a broader cultural phenomenon. As shared cultural icons become battlegrounds, each side tries to reclaim them as proof of its own worldview. For some conservatives, Star Trek once represented order, hierarchy, and technological dominance. When that vision is reframed more explicitly around equity, inclusion, and social justice, it feels like a betrayal.

For others, it’s simply Star Trek being honest about what it has always stood for.

The Bigger Question

At its core, this controversy isn’t really about a TV show. It raises a deeper question: Do we love cultural icons for what they truly say — or for what we wish they said?

From its very first episode, Star Trek invited audiences to imagine a better future — not just technologically advanced, but morally evolved. The reason it continues to provoke outrage today may be precisely because that vision remains, for many, uncomfortably radical.

🚀😳