Fans have long wondered about the fate of Jonathan Archer and how his story might have ended had Star Trek: Enterprise run its full seven seasons. In recent weeks, Mike Sussman — who served as a producer and writer on the series— has shared details about Star Trek: United, a pitch he developed with Scott Bakula and presented to executives at Alex Kurtzman’s Secret Hideout banner about two years ago. Although it didn’t move forward at the time, Sussman hopes the new Skydance leadership at Paramount will revisit the idea as they reshape their Star Trek strategy. The pitch follows Jonathan Archer’s continuing adventures, now as the President of the newly formed United Federation of Planets.
SciFiPulse: Your involvement with Star Trek goes all the way back to the mid-1990s when you worked on Voyager. Can you tell us a little bit about how you came to work on Star Trek and what specifically drew you to it?
Mike Sussman: I’ve been watching Star Trek for as long as I can remember. I tuned in six days a week as a kid — they played reruns on the local UHF stations Monday through Friday. I didn’t know they were reruns; they were new to me. And on weekends, I’d catch the Animated Series. Seemed like there were always new episodes on… until suddenly there weren’t.
I was drawn in by the adventure, the relationships, the role models I identified with, and the crazy sci-fi ideas. Those things still speak to me. But as I got older and the world became more complex and dangerous, I came to appreciate its faith in humanity — that we’ll keep striving to be better even if we keep falling short.
I moved to L.A. hoping to write for one of the ‘90s shows — Next Gen, Voyager, Deep Space Nine — but I had zero connections. At one of the Pasadena conventions, I heard about a writing internship program and quickly applied, and was ultimately accepted. And on the last day of that internship, I sold a story to Michael Piller, who was the showrunner on Voyager at the time. I still had a long way to go as a writer, but in that moment, it felt like I’d climbed Everest. Turns out I was just at base camp.
SFP: Star Trek has been in a strange place in recent years, with shows like Discovery, Picard, and Strange New Worlds receiving mixed reactions from the fan base. Why do you think this is, and what do you think you might be able to do on Star Trek: United to potentially win back some of the support that has dropped off in recent years?
Mike Sussman: Seems like most new Star Trek projects get a mixed reaction. A lot of fans were up in arms over the very idea of The Next Generation — Star Trek was Kirk, Spock, and Bones, end of story. I remember there were death threats in the news when it leaked that Spock died in Star Trek II. So none of this is really new. You can only write and make the kind of Star Trek show you want to see — thoughtful, character-driven stories that expand the mind a little. As the best Star Trek does. I also try to keep in mind “CCCP” — I don’t mean Marx or Lenin. “Continuity, Canon, and Competence Porn.” A good Trek show should have a pinch of all three. But too much and you spoil the broth.
SFP: Star Trek: United would, of course, be a prequel but also a sequel, continuing the adventures of Scott Bakula’s Jonathan Archer—this time as President of the Federation. How do you envision your pilot episode playing out? Would it depict Archer winning the presidency, or would he already be in office, dealing with crises or other challenges?
Mike Sussman: I’d want to open the show with a scene we never got — something that would’ve been from Enterprise Season 7, right in the middle of the Romulan War. One thing that’s become clear from all the feedback I’ve heard is that fans wanted to see that war. I keep hearing, “We were waiting for it, and you guys just skipped over it.” And I share that frustration. So I’d want to open United with that — a critical moment from the Romulan War. It’s not just fan service; it would introduce a new character who would be pivotal to the series moving forward. It would also not be cheap — rebuilding some of the NX-01, bringing back as much of the legacy cast as we could get, making them look as they did back then. But it would be a reward for fans who always wanted to see a piece of that conflict. And more importantly, it would set up this key character and the emotional foundation for everything that follows. As for where Archer will be in his life and career, you’ll have to tune in.
SFP: I recently rewatched most of Enterprise and was struck by how fantastic some of the recurring characters were, as well as how well the production designers managed to make it feel like it could be set before Kirk’s era—a no small feat. A standout character for me was Shran, played by the incredible Jeffrey Combs. Would there be scope for bringing some of these characters back?
Mike Sussman: That show had an amazing production design led by the legendary Herman Zimmerman. I’d love to get as much of that team back as possible for a follow-up. Regarding the cast, I’d love to have everybody from Enterprise appear in some capacity, but it would have to be organic. The relationship between Archer and Shran was one of my favourites on the show, and I’d love to continue that in some way. There are often practical challenges — actor availability, scheduling, and budget. The goal wouldn’t be cameos for nostalgia’s sake. If you’re going to bring a legacy character back, they need to matter to the story. You can’t have Jeffrey Combs pop in for a scene and disappear. If Shran returns, it’s because he’s integral to what’s going on. So yes, I’d love to have Jeffrey back. He’s phenomenal, and I see the Andorians as a vital part of the Federation in that era.
SFP: One of the things I loved about watching Enterprise was how Archer’s character evolved—from being quite Earth-centric, distrusting the Vulcans, and sceptical of bureaucracy, to learning how to navigate rules and do the right thing as a Starship Captain. With this speculative new series set 20 to 30 years later, how much more change will we see in Archer’s character, given how much he had already grown by the end of Enterprise?
Mike Sussman: He started out eager, impatient, distrustful of the Vulcans — but by the end of the series, he’d learned humility, empathy, and the weight of leadership. Thirty or so years later, that’s only deepened. He’ll have come far in his relationship with the Vulcans, largely thanks to T’Pol. The lessons Archer learned from her will resonate in his relationships with one of his adult kids, a Vulcan that he and his wife adopted many years earlier.
There’s no doubt the Xindi conflict and the Romulan War took a toll. He’s now realizing that building a lasting peace can be as difficult as winning a war. Maybe more so. He’s still an idealist who believes in the best of people, but he’s more measured. In United, we’d see a man trying to hold together something fragile, aware of how easily it can all come down.
SFP: When I think of a President Archer show, it brings to mind futuristic versions of Clear and Present Danger, The West Wing, or even 24. There seems to be a lot of potential to draw from political thrillers. With that in mind, have any fictional political movies or TV shows caught your attention in recent years that could inform the DNA of Star Trek: United?
Mike Sussman: I’d take my cues from my favourite political thrillers — part le Carré, part Tom Clancy — and blend that with the idealism of The West Wing and the gritty realism of Homeland. They all explore politics, loyalty, and paranoia in very different ways. Even The Crown and Slow Horses have a sensibility that could fit in this universe. At this point in history, I see the Federation as an experiment under duress. In some ways, the Romulan War never really ended — it just changed shape. The fight now is over information, trust, and who controls the story. Subterfuge is the biggest threat.
SFP: One show you’ve cited as inspiration is the recent Star Wars: Andor series, which ended after two seasons. I personally enjoyed it but found parts of the first season slow at times, especially when delving into bureaucracy, like Mon Mothma’s role. How would you avoid similar pacing issues on Star Trek: United?
Mike Sussman: Andor proved that a Star Wars story didn’t have to be about Jedi or Sith — it could be about regular people caught in the gears, doing their best. Similarly, I think there’s no reason a Star Trek story has to always be about the crew of a starship. There’s billions of other people in the Federation and a lot of them do important work — out of the limelight, making sacrifices, fighting the good fight.
Something else Andor showed was that you can know the ending and still be totally invested in a story. It’s no spoiler to tell their audience that the Death Star blows up and Cassian dies. It doesn’t make the story any less exciting. It’s a similar thing here — we know the Federation endures, but how it came into being, how it survived and at what cost. To me, those are intriguing questions just waiting to be dramatised.
Andor, at times, was a slow burn. But United would have a different rhythm. I’d want each episode to feel like a chapter, not one-twelfth of a season. Each episode should have its own arc, its own payoff. Serialization doesn’t mean you stop telling stories that can stand on their own.
Thanks to Trekmovie.com for use of this image.
SFP: I’ve seen some of the concept art that Andrew Probert has been doing for Star Trek: United, which is very exciting. How thrilling has it been for you to see this work, and does it match how you envision Archer’s world during his presidency? Also, what might a production designer like Probert do for locations like Babel, which have been mentioned but never actually seen on screen?
Mike Sussman: Andy’s work is incredible, no surprise there. What he’s done here is give a sense of what United could look like — grounded, elegant, and recognizably Star Trek. Of course, this has to become an actual series first, with a budget, an art department, and everything that comes with it, before Andy and other designers can make it all real.
SFP: Moving away from Star Trek for a moment, another show you’ve written for is the excellent 12 Monkeys, which was executive produced by Terry Matalas, who also exec produced Picard Season 3. I loved that show and had a fun thought: how do you think President Archer would handle a time traveler from the far future coming back to warn him about a pending global pandemic?
Mike Sussman: I think Archer’s had his fill of time travelers coming back with dire warnings. He’d have his security detail haul them away and move on.
SFP: Finally, there were a lot of races and species we only saw once during Star Trek: The Original Series and The Next Generation. How much scope do you think Star Trek: United would have to bring some of these one-shot races back, and is there a race you’d personally love to see get more time in the spotlight?
Mike Sussman: I want to see more of Shran and more Andorians, of course — but I was also thrilled to bring back the Tellarites in their first real speaking roles since The Original Series. I definitely want to see more of those argumentative guys. When I was writing for Enterprise, I remembered what Sarek said about Gav in “Journey to Babel” — “Tellarites do not argue for reason, they simply argue.” And I thought, okay, what if that’s their culture? What if debate is their sport — their version of combat? They may come off a little gruff or blunt — but what if they’re actually superb linguists, masters of rhetoric and persuasion? Who better to spar with in the political arena? I think we only scratched the surface with the Tellarites. There’s more to explore there.
SciFiPulse.net would like to thank Mike Sussman for his kindness and for taking the time to talk with us about Star Trek: United — a project we sincerely hope will one day become a reality.
