Saturday, 25th of October, 2025
By Devin Savage
I was listening to The Economist’s podcast this morning—a publication I respect for its thoughtful analysis—and heard something that caught me by surprise: the host described Trump’s sweeping cuts to scientific research as an attack on “woke ideology.”
Wait. What?
Trump is eliminating climate research programs, gutting the EPA’s scientific divisions, defunding basic research across multiple agencies, and threatening the independence of institutions that have served the public good for generations. But instead of saying that—instead of naming what’s actually happening—we’re told he’s “killing woke.”
Ladies and Gentlemen: we’ve been played.
The Theft of a Word
Let’s go back to the beginning. “Woke” didn’t originate in a conservative think tank or a Fox News writers’ room. It came from African American Vernacular English, where it meant something simple and powerful: being awake to systemic racism and social injustice. To be “woke” was to see clearly—to recognise the hidden biases, the structural inequalities, the systems that advantage some while disadvantaging others.
It was a term of empowerment. Of awareness. Of refusing to be blind to injustice.
Then MAGA stole it.
They didn’t just borrow it. They didn’t adopt it respectfully or engage with its meaning. They weaponised it. They inverted it. They transformed a call to awareness into a slur, a catch-all pejorative for everything they oppose: diversity efforts, environmental protection, LGBTQ+ rights, climate science, educational equity, public health measures, and yes, even basic scientific research.
The term became so capacious, so deliberately vague, that it could mean anything at any time. And that vagueness was the point.
The Dark-Sky Monument We Built Together
In my book “The DNA of Disaster,” I write about both Blue-Sky and Dark-Sky Monument building—the deliberate construction of cultural monuments which are a type of cultural shorthand, positive or negative, designed to serve agendas, to distort reality, to blind people to truth. The MAGA appropriation of “woke” is a textbook example.
They built a Dark-Sky Monument. A linguistic monument that stands for a fictional ideology—a unified “woke” conspiracy that supposedly controls academia, media, government, and science. This cultural monument exists entirely in language, but its power is real. And here’s the truly insidious part:
Every time we use their word, we strengthen their Dark-Sky Monument.
When The Economist says Trump is “attacking woke ideology,” they’re not just using convenient shorthand. They’re accepting MAGA’s premise. They’re suggesting there really IS some monolithic “woke ideology” to attack, rather than describing what’s actually happening: systematic attacks on scientific integrity, civil rights protections, environmental safeguards, and institutional independence.
When we say “anti-woke backlash,” we obscure reality. When we debate “how woke is too woke,” we’re fighting on their territory, using their language, accepting their framing of the world.
We’ve become their unwitting collaborators.
The Collaboration Mechanism
How does using a single word make us collaborators? Let me count the ways:
1. We Accept Their Reality Distortion
By using “woke,” we imply there is indeed a unified ideological movement called “woke” that encompasses climate science, DEI initiatives, transgender rights, and environmental protection. But these are separate issues, each with its own evidence base, moral arguments, and policy implications. Lumping them together as “woke” suggests they’re all just ideology—mere opinion rather than responses to real problems.
2. We Lose Specificity
What does “anti-woke” actually mean? Are we talking about:
- Eliminating climate research programs?
- Removing diversity considerations from hiring?
- Banning books with LGBTQ+ characters?
- Defunding public health initiatives?
- Attacking academic freedom?
Each of these deserves its own specific discussion and defence. When we let them all dissolve into “woke,” we can’t defend any of them effectively. The Dark-Sky Monument obscures what’s actually at stake.
3. We Legitimise Their Framing
Language shapes thought. When we adopt MAGA’s vocabulary, we suggest their categorisation of the world is valid. We imply that concern for climate change, racial equity, or scientific integrity is ideological rather than factual or moral. We let them define the terms of debate.
4. We Hand Them Cognitive Efficiency
“Woke” is efficient. It takes less mental energy to say “woke policies” than to say “policies promoting racial equity, climate action, LGBTQ+ rights, scientific integrity, and public health.” But that efficiency comes at a devastating cost: it makes all these concerns dismissible with a single derisive term.
Journalists love efficiency. Commentators crave shorthand. But this particular efficiency is a trap. It’s the cognitive equivalent of taking the easy path that leads off a cliff.
A Historical Pattern
This isn’t new. Authoritarian movements always seek to control language first. George Orwell understood this. In “1984,” the Party doesn’t just ban certain ideas—they eliminate the words needed to express them. If you can’t say it, eventually you can’t think it.
But there’s an even closer parallel: the way marginalised communities lose power when they internalise oppressors’ language.
Imagine if Jewish communities started using antisemitic slurs as their primary self-descriptor. Imagine if women’s organisations called themselves by misogynistic epithets coined by their opponents, or the Romani people in Europe describing themselves as “Gyps.”
It sounds absurd, right? Yet that’s essentially what’s happening with “woke.” A term that originated in the African American community as a call to awareness has been stolen, inverted, and weaponised—and now even people who oppose MAGA use it reflexively, as if it’s neutral vocabulary rather than a linguistic weapon.
The Ironic Tragedy
Here’s the ultimate irony: the original meaning of “woke” was about seeing clearly. It meant being aware of hidden systems, recognising biases, refusing to be blind to injustice. Being woke was understanding that our society displays systemic inequality and the built-in privilege of some over others; that this reality is not accidental, it’s economic policy.
MAGA’s appropriation does exactly the opposite. It prevents unobstructed vision. It obscures reality. It turns awareness into something mockable, dismissible, contemptible.
When we use their term, we literally become less “woke” in the original sense. We accept manufactured confusion instead of demanding clarity. We let complexity be flattened into caricature.
In the framework of my book, this is what I call Human Folly #2—the Propaganda Folly. This occurs when we assume the absence of intelligent design (manipulation) where it’s very much present. MAGA’s linguistic strategy wasn’t accidental. It wasn’t organic language evolution. It was deliberate, strategic, manpulative, and brilliantly effective.
And we keep feeding it.
The Stakes
“It’s just a word,” some might say. “Language evolves. Why make such a big deal?”
Because language shapes reality. Because when legitimate concerns become “woke,” they become dismissible. Because scientists, educators, and journalists who oppose Trump’s cuts but use “woke” in their public discourse undermine their own arguments.
Right now, climate research programs are being shuttered. Scientists are being silenced. Public health initiatives are being defunded. Civil rights protections are being rolled back. Educational materials are being banned. Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill passed, but the working class will pay proportionally more than their share for it.
These are concrete actions with real consequences. But when we describe them as “attacks on woke ideology,” we make them sound like mere culture war skirmishes instead of systematic dismantling of institutions and protections that serve the public good.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. The planet’s climate doesn’t care about ideology—it responds according to the laws of physics. Disease outbreaks don’t pause for political posturing. Systemic inequalities don’t vanish when we become blind to them.
What We Can Do: Linguistic Resistance
This isn’t about political correctness or language policing. It’s about refusing to let others control our reality through vocabulary. It’s about cognitive self-defence.
Here’s what linguistic resistance looks like in practice:
Be Specific
- Instead of: “Trump’s anti-woke agenda” I suggest using the word “The Dismantling”
- When referring to what you would normally consider ‘woke’ or ‘woke ideology’ and you mean “Trump’s cuts to climate research, elimination of diversity programs, and attacks on scientific independence” use a different phrase. “Trump’s dismantling of our institutions and norms” would be more appropriate.
Refuse the Frame
- When someone says “woke,” ask them: “Can you be more specific about what you mean?”
- Say: “Oh, you mean “The Dismantling” or “Trump’s Dismantling”
- Don’t let vague terminology substitute for clear thinking.
Reclaim the Concepts
- Use original terms: “social consciousness,” “awareness of systemic injustice,” “equity initiatives,” “evidence-based policy”
- These terms are more accurate and harder to weaponise
Name the Tactic
- Call it out: “That term was appropriated and weaponised to obscure what’s actually being discussed.”
- Point to specifics: “We’re not debating ‘woke’—we’re debating whether climate research should be funded.”
Educate Others
- Share the history of the term’s appropriation
- Help people see the Dark-Sky Monument they’re helping to build.
- Help them understand what Dark-Sky Monument building actually is.
The Path Forward
Every time you’re tempted to use “woke”—even critically, even sarcastically, even while opposing everything MAGA stands for—pause. Ask yourself: What am I actually trying to say? What specific policy, action, or concern am I describing?
Then say THAT instead.
If you’re a journalist writing about Trump’s science cuts, don’t say he’s “attacking woke ideology.” Say he’s “eliminating climate research programs and gutting scientific institutions.” The extra words matter. The specificity matters. The refusal to accept their framing matters.
If you’re a commentator discussing educational policy, don’t debate “how woke is too woke in schools.” Discuss specific curricula, specific books, specific policies. Make people defend their actual positions rather than hiding behind a MAGA-manufactured slur.
If you’re an academic, activist, or concerned citizen, refuse the Dark-Sky Monument. Every time we reject “woke” and demand specificity instead, we chip away at the linguistic structure MAGA built to obscure reality.
Conclusion: Staying Actually Woke
The original meaning of “woke”—being aware, seeing clearly, recognising hidden systems—has never been more important. But to honour that meaning, we must refuse the weaponised version.
We must see clearly what’s being done to language itself. We must recognise the monument being built. We must refuse to be its unwitting architects.
This is how Blue-Sky and Dark-Sky Monuments work: in democratic societies they succeed not through force but through adoption. They win when even their opponents start using their language, accepting their premises, fighting on their territory.
The Economist is a smart publication filled with thoughtful people. But when they say Trump is “killing woke ideology,” they’re speaking MAGA’s language. They’re strengthening and entrenching MAGA’s Dark-Sky Monument. They’re helping to obscure reality rather than illuminate it.
We can do better. We must do better.
The next time you hear someone—even someone you respect, even someone on “your side”—use “woke” as if it’s neutral vocabulary, gently push back. Ask for specificity. Refuse the frame. Name what’s actually happening.
This is linguistic resistance. This is cognitive self-defence. This is refusing to collaborate with those who seek to make awareness contemptible, who want to make crystal-clear reality mockable, who need to obscure our reality to advance their agenda.
Stay woke—in the original sense. See clearly. Recognise the systems at work. Refuse to be blind. Call it what it is. Understand how Trump and his MAGA collaborators have gaslighted everyone.
And for the love of truth, stop using their damn word!
About the Author: Devin Savage is the author of “The DNA of Disaster: Catastrophe by Design” and a cultural analyst examining how societies build and maintain the Cultural Monuments that shape—and sometimes distort—collective understanding. He currently practices dental medicine and writes from Tübingen, Germany.
Related Reading:
“Don’t Think of an Elephant!” by George Lakoff (on framing and political language)
“Politics and the English Language” by George Orwell
“1984” by George Orwell
“The DNA of Disaster: Catastrophe by Design” by Devin Savage
