Trump orders 'Super Intelligence' term, Newsom signs counter-order

By Splitfeed EditorialLast updated Oct 1, 2026, 07:20 UTC

In late September and early October 2026, two competing directives reshaped how government bodies in the United States are formally required to talk about artificial intelligence. President Trump signed an executive order mandating that all federal agencies drop the term "AI" and replace it with "Super Intelligence" across official communications. Within roughly a day, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a state-level counter-order directing California agencies to continue using "artificial intelligence," explicitly framing the move as a rejection of the federal rebranding.

The dispute is, on its surface, a fight over a label, but terminology in policy and regulation carries real weight. The words agencies use shape legislation, procurement contracts, liability frameworks, and public understanding. If federal agencies and California agencies are operating under different official vocabularies for the same technology, that creates friction in areas where federal and state governments routinely interact, including research funding, law enforcement technology, and consumer protection. California has long acted as a de facto national standard-setter on technology regulation, so its refusal to align with federal language is not a symbolic gesture alone. The underlying question in genuine dispute is whether the executive branch has the standing to impose terminology on state governments at all, and whether a rebranding of this kind serves any coherent policy purpose beyond political signaling.

None of the three camps had published reactions at the time of writing. The Pro-AI camp would typically welcome any framing that elevates the technology's perceived capabilities and ambition, potentially seeing "Super Intelligence" as reflecting confidence in the field's trajectory. The Anti-AI camp would more likely view a presidential rebrand as an attempt to obscure risks and sidestep the critical associations that "artificial intelligence" has accumulated in public debate. The Middle Ground camp would probably focus on the practical confusion the dueling directives introduce for researchers, regulators, and companies operating across both jurisdictions, arguing that stable, shared language is a precondition for coherent governance.

The clearest thing to watch is whether any legal challenge emerges over the federal order's scope and whether other states follow California's lead. A court filing or a coordinated multi-state response in the weeks ahead would indicate how far this terminology conflict is likely to extend into actual regulatory and legislative practice.