Trump backs Jay Clayton for AI czar role

By Splitfeed EditorialLast updated Sep 30, 2026, 14:41 UTC

On September 29, 2026, President Trump publicly named Jay Clayton, the current Director of National Intelligence, as his preferred candidate for a new AI czar role. The statement came first through an Axios scoop and was picked up widely the same evening and into September 30. Trump also said he intends to issue an order renaming artificial intelligence "super intelligence," a branding shift with no technical definition attached to it. Clayton, who served as SEC chair before his DNI role, is best known in financial circles for overseeing the agency's lawsuit against Ripple, the blockchain payments company. On September 30, Clayton responded publicly by framing what Trump called super intelligence as a national security concern, but he did not confirm or deny any interest in the czar position. No formal appointment or Senate confirmation process has been announced.

The significance here runs on two tracks. The first is structural: creating an AI czar would concentrate federal AI policy under a single appointed figure, a role that does not yet have a statutory definition, clear jurisdiction, or confirmed authority over the agencies and budgets that shape how the government uses and regulates AI. The second track is Clayton's background. His tenure at the SEC included initiating litigation against Ripple that lasted years and shaped how regulators treated cryptocurrency more broadly. That history is generating attention from cryptocurrency-focused observers who see his potential elevation as relevant to how AI and digital assets might be governed together or separately going forward. Whether Trump's public endorsement translates into a formal process, and what powers that role would actually carry, remain open questions.

None of the three camps have published reactions to this story yet. The Pro-AI camp would typically welcome a dedicated senior official as a sign that the administration is treating AI as a serious national priority, though skeptics within that camp might worry about regulatory overreach depending on who holds the role. The Anti-AI camp would ordinarily raise concerns about whether a single czar position provides enough accountability or public input for decisions of this scale. The Middle Ground camp would likely call for a clear legislative mandate defining what the czar can and cannot do, rather than leaving the role's authority to executive discretion alone.

The argument will sharpen considerably if and when Trump issues a formal nomination or executive order. The scope of authority written into that order, and whether Congress moves to codify or constrain the position, would be the most direct signals of what this role is actually meant to accomplish.