The term “woke” has undergone significant transformation over time, evolving from a phrase in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) to a charged political label. While its origins in Black activism symbolized awareness of racial and social injustice, the term has been redefined and weaponized in contemporary discourse. From its early roots to its current political implications, the history of “woke” reveals much about the changing landscape of social justice movements and the polarized debates surrounding them.
Origins: The Emergence of “Woke” in Black Activism
“Woke” originally emerged within African American Vernacular English (AAVE), where it referred to being awake or aware, particularly regarding social and racial issues. The term dates back to the 1940s, with early uses such as in the 1942 New York Times article that advised readers to “stay woke” in reference to racial inequalities (NPR, 2024). The phrase’s true significance, however, began to take root during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s when Black activists embraced the term as part of their struggle for racial justice.
To be “woke” was to be conscious of the societal forces that perpetuated racial oppression, and it was a call to action for those who sought to dismantle these systems. It wasn’t merely about awareness but also about staying vigilant in the fight against injustice, whether it was through activism, community engagement, or policy reform.
The Expansion of “Woke” in the 21st Century
The term gained broader recognition in the early 2000s, especially with the rise of social media and its role in organizing movements like Black Lives Matter (BLM). As movements addressing racial inequality, police violence, and systemic oppression grew in prominence, “woke” became synonymous with activism and social consciousness in progressive circles.
“Woke” signified a heightened awareness of not just racial inequality but also other social justice issues such as gender inequality, LGBTQ+ rights, and economic injustice. In this context, the term emphasized a holistic understanding of oppression, recognizing that issues like class, race, and gender were interconnected and demanded intersectional approaches (NPR, 2023). Progressives began using “woke” to encourage others to be conscious of these societal issues and to fight for equality and justice.
Political Weaponization of “Woke”
As “woke” entered the political mainstream, it began to take on a more contentious meaning. Conservative figures began using the term pejoratively to criticize what they viewed as overreach by progressive movements. This shift was particularly evident in the rhetoric of politicians like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who criticized the rise of “woke” ideologies in his campaign against “woke culture” (NPR, 2023). DeSantis, in particular, has positioned himself as a champion against what he frames as the excesses of “wokeism,” often linking it to a supposed threat to traditional values, free speech, and American institutions (Mother Jones, 2023).
The term “woke” was increasingly used by the right to describe policies and initiatives promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in public institutions, particularly in government and the military (NPR, 2024). In this context, conservatives, including figures like Pete Hegseth, argued that such initiatives were an unnecessary imposition on American values, framing “woke” as an unwelcome force in sectors like the Department of Defense (NPR, 2024).
Conservative critiques of “woke” culture have often focused on identity politics, claiming that it fosters division and undermines meritocracy. They argue that “woke” politics prioritizes group identities over individual achievement and promotes a divisive narrative that stifles free expression. For many on the right, “woke” culture represents an attack on traditional institutions and the cultural norms that underpin American society (Mother Jones, 2023).
The Persistence of “Woke” in Progressive Movements
Despite the right-wing backlash, the term “woke” remains a central component of progressive activism. To be woke today is still to be aware of and engaged with the systems of oppression that continue to shape society. It signifies an awareness of the structural inequalities that affect marginalized communities, including those based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and economic status.
For progressives, the label “woke” remains an important symbol of resistance and a commitment to fighting for a more inclusive and just society. It reflects the idea that addressing inequality requires constant vigilance and a willingness to confront injustice wherever it exists. Far from being a negative force, being woke is about staying informed, compassionate, and active in the struggle for social justice.
The use of “woke” by progressives today extends beyond its original association with race. It now encompasses broader struggles for equity and justice, from climate action to LGBTQ+ rights, labor rights, and the fight against voter suppression. “Woke” culture is, in essence, a reminder that the work for justice is far from finished, and that all individuals must remain alert to the ways in which systems of power shape society.
Conclusion: “Woke” as a Reflection of Societal Struggles
The evolution of the term “woke” from a call for racial justice to a politicized label reflects broader societal struggles over the direction of social and cultural change. Initially a term used by Black activists to signify awareness of racial oppression, “woke” has grown into a symbol of resistance to systemic injustice in all its forms. While it has been politicized and weaponized by conservative forces, for progressives, it remains a term that signifies a commitment to confronting inequality and working toward a more just world.
As debates over “woke” culture continue to intensify, it is clear that the term will remain a flashpoint in the ongoing culture wars. For those committed to social justice, “woke” is more than just a label—it is a call to remain engaged in the fight for a world that is equitable, inclusive, and free from discrimination.
References
Mother Jones. (2023, August 1). Negrophilia, “woke,” and the right’s obsession with Black culture. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/08/negrophilia-woke-right-conservative-desantis/
NPR. (2023, July 21). How “woke” became a political tool for both Trump and DeSantis. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/21/1189016049/woke-desantis-trump-black-culture
NPR. (2024, November 14). Pete Hegseth on the Defense Department’s DEI initiatives. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/14/nx-s1-5191941/pete-hegseth-defense-department-dei
Trump’s War on Dissent
By Katherine Walter
On June 8, 2025
In civil rights, Donald Trump
EDITORS NOTE: Graphic content / US Department of Homeland Security Police officers and members of the National Guard stand guard outside the Metropolitan Detention Center, MDC, in downtown Los Angeles, California on June 8, 2025. Hundreds of National Guard troops took up positions in Los Angeles on June 8 on US President Donald Trump’s orders, a rare deployment against the state governor’s wishes after sometimes violent protests against immigration enforcement raids. (Photo by Frederic J. Brown / AFP) (Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images)
On June 8, 2025, President Donald J. Trump took the extraordinary step of deploying the California National Guard to Los Angeles without the consent of Governor Gavin Newsom. The move was prompted by days of civil unrest following aggressive ICE raids in predominantly Latino neighborhoods in Southern California. While the official justification cited the need to restore order, the action fits within a broader historical pattern of Trump’s antagonism toward civil protest, particularly those that question his policies or leadership. The deployment is significant not only for its legal implications but also for the insight it offers into Trump’s authoritarian inclinations and his evolving use of federal power.
The protests began on June 6, when ICE agents conducted a coordinated series of raids on businesses in Los Angeles, including several clothing wholesalers and a Home Depot, reportedly detaining 44 undocumented workers (Associated Press, 2025a). Demonstrators gathered almost immediately in response, particularly in the communities of Paramount and Compton. Local news outlets and protest organizers described the raids as racially motivated and disproportionate. Over the next two days, confrontations between protesters and law enforcement escalated. Reports from the Los Angeles Times indicated the use of tear gas, pepper spray, and flash-bang grenades by federal agents (Vanity Fair, 2025). Protesters were accused of throwing rocks and concrete chunks, and by June 7, over 100 arrests had been made (Schneid, 2025).
On the morning of June 8, Trump invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code to federalize the California National Guard, ordering the immediate deployment of approximately 2,000 troops to the Los Angeles area (Associated Press, 2025a). The initial wave of around 300 soldiers was stationed outside federal immigration facilities, including detention centers in downtown Los Angeles. Department of Homeland Security personnel, joined by local law enforcement, used smoke and crowd-control tactics to clear demonstrators from the perimeter of these buildings (Vanity Fair, 2025). More troubling still, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth placed active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton on high alert, stating that additional support would be mobilized if local resistance intensified (Wall Street Journal, 2025).
The legal basis for this intervention drew immediate scrutiny. Unlike the Insurrection Act—which has historically required consent from governors unless rebellion or national security threats are imminent—Title 10 allows the president to assume control of a state’s National Guard under more ambiguous circumstances. Trump’s use of this authority without consultation or approval from Governor Newsom represented a sharp departure from precedent (Washington Post, 2025). While prior instances of federal deployment have occurred—most notably during the civil rights era in 1965 and again during the 1992 Los Angeles riots—those actions typically involved collaboration between state and federal governments. Trump’s unilateral order broke with this tradition and raised immediate constitutional concerns.
Governor Newsom condemned the move, calling it “a political stunt masquerading as public safety” (Schneid, 2025). He emphasized that while some violence had occurred, local law enforcement had the situation under control. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass similarly criticized the decision, asserting that federal interference had inflamed tensions rather than de-escalated them (Associated Press, 2025b). Civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU, filed emergency injunctions in federal court, arguing that the federalization of the Guard in this context violated the Tenth Amendment and constituted an overreach of executive authority (Reuters, 2025).
Trump, meanwhile, defended his decision by invoking the language of law and order. On his Truth Social account, he referred to the demonstrators as “Radical Left agitators” and accused them of trying to undermine ICE’s lawful operations. He further announced a new federal regulation banning the use of masks at protests, which critics argued would further chill lawful dissent (The Daily Beast, 2025). In a televised address, he declared that “these protests are not about immigration—they’re about chaos, and we will not allow our cities to be taken over by mobs” (Vanity Fair, 2025). The administration’s framing of the protests as a rebellion rather than protected expression marked a dramatic escalation in tone.
This pattern is not new. During the summer of 2020, following the police murder of George Floyd, Trump threatened to deploy active-duty troops to major cities under the Insurrection Act. At the time, his Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, opposed the idea, and the deployment was ultimately shelved in favor of National Guard assistance requested by governors (Baker et al., 2020). Still, the president’s language—especially his tweet that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”—signaled an aversion to protest and a readiness to treat dissent as criminality. Twitter flagged the post for glorifying violence. Although he stopped short of federalizing troops in 2020, Trump’s second term has shown a greater willingness to follow through on such threats.
What has changed between 2020 and 2025 is both the legal assertiveness and the composition of Trump’s inner circle. Pete Hegseth, a conservative media personality and military veteran, now heads the Department of Defense and has shown no hesitation in using federal power to advance Trump’s agenda (Wall Street Journal, 2025). The administration no longer faces internal resistance to military deployments within U.S. borders, and Hegseth’s public statements indicate an expansive view of executive authority over domestic security.
The deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles is troubling not only for its immediate impact but also for the precedent it sets. Legal scholars argue that the president’s invocation of Title 10 without compelling justification stretches the intent of the statute and undermines the balance of power between federal and state governments (Washington Post, 2025). By reframing peaceful protest as rebellion, the Trump administration expands the conditions under which future presidents might justify similar interventions. The deployment also serves to delegitimize public dissent and normalize military presence in response to constitutionally protected speech.
Politically, the move appears calibrated to energize Trump’s base. By portraying the protests as violent and anarchic, Trump crafts a narrative of national chaos that only he can control. This strategy, first evident in 2016 and refined in 2020, has become more explicit in his second term. Commentators have described the Los Angeles deployment as a “dress rehearsal” for federal crackdowns in other cities, particularly those governed by Democratic officials (The Daily Beast, 2025).
Civil liberties advocates warn that this could lead to an erosion of protest rights nationwide. If the federal government can override local control whenever political opposition manifests in the streets, then public assembly may become subject to partisan suppression. Already, activists report increased surveillance, aggressive policing, and prosecutions under federal statutes that were rarely used in past administrations (Reuters, 2025).
Perhaps most ominous is the symbolic weight of military deployment in a democratic society. The sight of uniformed troops in American cities sends a chilling message about the limits of dissent. It transforms the public square into a battleground and reduces the space for political disagreement. As historians have pointed out, democracy depends not only on laws and elections but also on norms of restraint and mutual respect. The willingness to call out troops against fellow citizens erodes those norms and creates a political culture of fear and coercion.
Trump’s aversion to civil protest is not merely personal—it is ideological. He views opposition as illegitimate and protest as rebellion. This worldview has shaped his policies and informed his rhetoric from the beginning of his political career. The events of June 8, 2025, are not an anomaly but the logical conclusion of a long-standing approach to governance—one that prioritizes control over compromise and sees federal power as a tool to crush dissent rather than uphold democratic rights.
As Americans reflect on this moment, the stakes are clear. The deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles raises profound questions about the future of civil liberties, the separation of powers, and the health of our democratic institutions. It challenges us to consider whether protest will remain a protected right or become a pretext for martial intervention. And it forces us to ask what kind of country we want to be: one where dissent is respected, or one where it is suppressed at the point of a gun.
References
Associated Press. (2025a, June 8). What to know about Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests. https://apnews.com/article/national-guard-trump-los-angeles-protests-2025
Associated Press. (2025b, June 8). California governor calls Trump’s move “inflammatory” as Guard arrives in L.A. https://apnews.com/article/newsom-trump-national-guard-2025
Baker, P., Shear, M. D., & Schmitt, E. (2020, June 3). Trump’s authority to send troops into states, explained. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/us/politics/trump-military-authority.html
Reuters. (2025, June 7). White House aide calls Los Angeles anti-ICE protests an insurrection. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-declares-los-angeles-protests-insurrection-2025
Schneid, R. (2025, June 8). Trump sparks backlash as National Guard arrives in L.A. on his orders. TIME. https://time.com/trump-national-guard-backlash-los-angeles-2025
The Daily Beast. (2025, June 8). It’s summer in Trump’s America and fascism is in bloom. https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-has-a-bad-case-of-premature-despotism
Vanity Fair. (2025, June 8). National Guard troops arrive in Los Angeles after Trump signs orders. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/national-guard-arrive-in-los-angeles-after-trump-signs-orders
Wall Street Journal. (2025, June 8). Trump advisers once opposed using active-duty troops at protests. Not anymore. https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/trump-advisers-once-opposed-using-active-duty-troops-at-protests-not-anymore-96afb208
Washington Post. (2025, June 8). Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/06/08/trump-national-guard-la-protests-law