Trump calls anyone using term 'artificial intelligence' an enemy

By Splitfeed EditorialLast updated Oct 9, 2026, 13:10 UTC

On October 8, 2026, President Donald Trump declared that anyone who uses the phrase 'artificial intelligence' rather than 'super intelligence' is 'the enemy,' extending that label explicitly to enemies of the White House. The statement followed a meeting Trump held with three tech leaders and came alongside his formation of a new body called the 'Super Intelligence Force.' The same day, TOKENPOST and others noted a striking contradiction: AI.gov, the official White House government website, continued to display the phrase 'artificial intelligence' even after Trump made his remarks. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene broke with Trump publicly on the terminology position, an unusual split given her typical alignment with the administration.

The episode matters beyond its surface strangeness because it touches on how the United States government officially frames its technology policy at a moment when that policy carries significant regulatory, diplomatic, and economic weight. A president's chosen vocabulary can shift agency priorities, affect how legislation is written, and signal to international partners and competitors what direction Washington intends to take. The internal contradiction, with the White House's own website ignoring the directive immediately after it was issued, raises genuine questions about whether the instruction has any operational force or whether it reflects something more performative. The Economist framed Trump's broader approach to AI as an untenable strategy, though the specific reasoning behind that characterization was not detailed in available summaries.

None of the three camps, Pro-AI, Anti-AI, or Middle Ground, had published direct reactions at the time of writing. Pro-AI voices would typically welcome any administration enthusiasm for advancing the technology but might express concern that rebranding exercises without policy substance could create confusion in an already competitive global landscape. Anti-AI commentators would ordinarily use a moment like this to argue that the administration is prioritizing spectacle over genuine safety governance. Middle Ground observers would likely focus on the institutional incoherence, pointing out that durable technology policy requires consistent language across agencies, not declarations that the government's own websites immediately contradict.

The clearest thing to watch is whether AI.gov and other federal properties are updated to conform to Trump's preferred terminology, and whether any formal directive, executive order, or agency guidance is issued that gives 'super intelligence' an official administrative definition. If no such document materializes, the declaration may remain symbolically notable but practically inert.