Trump directs US diplomats to call AI 'super intelligence'

By Splitfeed EditorialLast updated Sep 27, 2026, 16:20 UTC

On September 24, 2026, the US State Department issued a directive ordering American diplomats worldwide to replace the term 'artificial intelligence' with 'super intelligence' in official communications. The order originated from President Trump personally, according to reporting from babel.ua, and the guidance was distributed to diplomatic staff across the globe. The terminology change applies specifically to how officials speak and write about the technology in diplomatic contexts; no reports indicate it touches underlying policy, funding, or programs.

China's public response, reported on September 26, was to state that it 'respects' the terminology switch, a reaction that is notable given the competitive dynamic between Washington and Beijing over AI development. The substance of the dispute is largely about language and its implications rather than technology itself. Firstpost flagged that 'super intelligence' carries a 'sinister meaning' in some circles, a reference to the longstanding use of the phrase in AI safety discourse, where it often denotes a hypothetical machine intellect that surpasses human control. Whether the administration intended that connotation, was unaware of it, or simply preferred the word 'super' for its positive branding associations is genuinely unclear from available reporting.

None of the three camps, Pro-AI, Anti-AI, or Middle Ground, have published reactions to this story yet. Pro-AI advocates would typically welcome any framing that emphasizes the power and ambition of the technology, though they might worry that invoking 'super intelligence' stokes existential fears without policy substance behind it. Anti-AI voices would be expected to argue that the choice of the term is revealing, that it either normalizes a trajectory toward unsafe systems or trivializes serious safety concerns by treating a loaded concept as a branding exercise. Middle Ground commentators would likely focus on the diplomatic consequences, asking whether shifting official terminology creates confusion with allies, complicates international standards bodies, or signals something substantive about US ambitions.

The clearest thing to watch is whether other governments, international bodies such as the OECD or the UN, or treaty frameworks adjust or push back against the new US usage. Any formal diplomatic exchange or standards document that either adopts or explicitly rejects the term 'super intelligence' would reveal how much practical weight the rebranding carries beyond Washington.