Newsom keeps 'artificial intelligence' name as Trump pushes 'super intelligence'

By Splitfeed EditorialLast updated Oct 1, 2026, 11:00 UTC

On October 1, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom formally declined to alter the term 'artificial intelligence' in state-level usage, holding the existing language in place against a push from President Donald Trump to replace it with 'super intelligence' at the federal level. The move preserves a terminological split between California's state government and the federal administration, with no specific legislation or executive order date attached to Trump's rebranding effort in the available reporting.

The dispute over a label might appear trivial, but naming conventions in official policy carry real weight. The term used in statutes, procurement rules and regulatory frameworks determines which technologies fall under which rules, how courts interpret obligations, and how the public perceives the scope of oversight. 'Artificial intelligence' carries years of established legal and technical meaning across dozens of state laws and international standards bodies, while 'super intelligence' has a separate, longstanding meaning in AI research referring specifically to systems that exceed human cognitive ability across all domains. Whether Trump's preferred term would create definitional confusion with that existing technical usage is a genuine open question, and Newsom's office appears to be treating terminological continuity as a practical priority rather than purely a political one.

None of the three camps, Pro-AI, Anti-AI, and Middle Ground, have published reactions to this story yet. Pro-AI voices would typically welcome any reframing that elevates public perception of the technology and might view 'super intelligence' as aspirational branding, though some in that camp might also worry about conflating consumer AI tools with a term that implies a specific and far more powerful class of system. Anti-AI voices would typically raise concerns that softening or glamorizing the terminology obscures risks and weakens the case for regulation. Middle Ground observers would likely focus on the procedural question of whether terminology divergence between state and federal governments creates compliance ambiguity for companies operating in both jurisdictions.

The clearest thing to watch is whether the Trump administration moves from preference to mandate, issuing a formal executive order or federal regulatory guidance that requires 'super intelligence' as official terminology, which would force a harder confrontation with states like California that have extensive existing AI statute language to reconcile.