Trump signs AI accord and executive order renaming technology 'super intelligence'

By Splitfeed EditorialLast updated Sep 29, 2026, 21:50 UTC

On September 29, 2026, President Trump hosted a White House lunch with a group of prominent technology executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, Dario Amodei of Anthropic, and Jensen Huang of Nvidia. At that meeting, Trump and the attending executives signed a voluntary accord described as morally binding, committing them to self-police AI development. Trump also signed an executive order formally replacing the term artificial intelligence with super intelligence across government documents, and separately ruled out any joint venture with China on AI development, arguing that cooperation with Beijing would make it harder for American companies to outcompete their Chinese counterparts. White House economist Hassett stated that AI creates rather than kills jobs.

The substance of what was agreed matters as much as the symbolism. A voluntary, self-policing accord carries no enforcement mechanism, which places it in direct contrast to calls from researchers and some within the industry for binding government oversight. Dario Amodei, who attended the lunch, has previously urged caution on AI safety, making his presence at a signing ceremony for a non-binding agreement a point of genuine tension. The renaming of the technology in official documents is not purely cosmetic either, since terminology shapes regulation, procurement and public framing. An unnamed figure described in sources as AI's godfather publicly called Trump ill-advised on the subject, and Bloomberg reported that Trump shot down the possibility of new federal regulations after the meeting.

The pro-AI camp has received the developments with cautious interest. Fllics framed the exclusion of China as strategically sensible, arguing that joint governance would hamper American competitiveness, while TheTruthHurts allowed that the superintelligence framing might carry some value. Critics have been sharper. Amee Vanderpool mocked the idea that the executives who built these systems are credible self-regulators, and Mike Brock noted the irony of tech leaders endorsing a rebranding exercise as though the word artificial were the core public concern. SkynetAndChill.com echoed that skepticism with a sardonic take on the intelligence of the systems being labeled infallible. The middle ground has largely focused on the gap between how the industry discusses AI and how the public experiences it, a tension The Atlantic highlighted through its coverage of the SNL season premiere.

The practical question going forward is whether the voluntary accord produces any visible changes in how the signing companies develop or deploy their systems, and whether Congress moves to fill the regulatory vacuum Trump has now explicitly left open. Any legislative proposal, court challenge to the executive order on terminology, or public breach of the accord's informal commitments would sharpen the debate considerably.