Trump signs order renaming AI 'super intelligence' after tech summit

By Splitfeed EditorialLast updated Sep 30, 2026, 01:20 UTC

On September 29, 2026, President Donald Trump hosted a luncheon for technology and AI executives in the White House East Room, then signed an executive order directing the federal government to replace the term "artificial intelligence" with "super intelligence" across official use. Attendees included Elon Musk, Jensen Huang, and leaders from Meta, OpenAI, and Microsoft. Those CEOs also signed a White House safety accord on what the administration is now calling Super Intelligence, and the White House launched a new AI-focused government website alongside the event.

The renaming itself carries little technical weight, but the policy signals surrounding it carry more. According to the New York Times, Trump called on companies including Meta, OpenAI, and Microsoft to make AI safety decisions themselves, framing industry self-regulation as preferable to government mandates. That position is substantively contested: Representative Ted Lieu, according to a post by pguist.bsky.social, publicly criticized the move amid broader calls for regulatory oversight of the technology. The combination of a rebranding order and a voluntary industry accord raises the question of whether the safety accord functions as a meaningful commitment or as a substitute for enforceable rules.

The Pro-AI camp had published no reactions at the time of writing. Typically, that camp would be expected to welcome the administration's embrace of the industry and its rejection of top-down regulation, though whether the rebranding itself would be seen as helpful or merely symbolic is an open question. The Anti-AI camp responded with derision. Kittiehouse.bsky.social drew a pointed contrast with Trump's "Stable Genius" self-description, while atticuspund.bsky.social compared the move to renaming computers "Super Calculators." Vero1986.bsky.social framed the order as demanding public trust in a technology without democratic accountability, and whyambee.bsky.social compared the bureaucratic maneuver to imperial Russian administration. The Middle Ground reaction from Dare Obasanjo at carnage4life.bsky.social was brief but telling, noting that a Truth Social poll apparently had more influence on federal terminology than expected, suggesting skepticism about the process without outright rejection of the outcome.

The practical test of this moment will come from whether the safety accord is treated as binding by participating companies, and whether Congress responds to Trump's self-regulation framing with legislation of its own. Lieu's criticism suggests at least some appetite on Capitol Hill for a legislative answer, and any committee action or proposed bill in the weeks following the summit would clarify whether September 29 marked a policy turning point or a symbolic ceremony.