Trump signs order renaming AI to 'super intelligence' in federal use

By Splitfeed EditorialLast updated Sep 30, 2026, 00:00 UTC

On September 29, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order directing the federal government to stop using the term 'artificial intelligence' in official contexts and replace it with 'super intelligence.' The signing was accompanied by a safety accord with chief executives from Meta, OpenAI, and Microsoft, as well as the launch of a new AI-powered government website. The accord is described as a voluntary commitment rather than a binding regulatory requirement, and Trump used the occasion to call on technology companies to take responsibility for their own safety decisions rather than rely on federal mandates.

The terminological change is not merely cosmetic. Federal language shapes procurement rules, research grant categories, legislative drafting, and regulatory definitions, so renaming a technology class in official use can have downstream effects on how agencies classify systems, how contracts are written, and how existing AI-related rules are interpreted or applied. The safety accord sits at the center of a genuine policy dispute: whether voluntary commitments from major technology companies constitute adequate governance, or whether the absence of binding rules leaves the public without enforceable protections. That question has been contested throughout the current administration's approach to AI, and this event sharpens it rather than resolves it.

None of the three camps had published reactions at the time this analysis was prepared. The Pro-AI camp would typically welcome both the rebranding, which frames the technology in aspirational terms, and the self-regulation model, arguing that industry actors are better positioned than regulators to manage fast-moving technical risks. The Anti-AI camp would be expected to criticize the voluntary nature of the accord as inadequate, and to raise concern that asking companies to police themselves removes meaningful public accountability. The Middle Ground camp would likely call attention to the gap between the symbolic weight of an executive order and the absence of enforceable standards, arguing that voluntary accords are a starting point at best and need follow-up mechanisms to carry real weight.

The practical test will come in how federal agencies implement the terminology shift in existing regulations and contracts, and whether the safety accord produces any auditable commitments or public reporting requirements from the signing companies. Those details, if released, would clarify whether the September 29 event marked a substantive policy shift or a largely performative one.