In a significant administrative shift that redefines the nomenclature of emerging technologies within the United States government, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday, September 29, mandating that all federal agencies cease the use of the term "artificial intelligence" (AI) in official communications, policy documents, and public outreach. Instead, the administration has directed the federal bureaucracy to adopt the term "super intelligence" (SI). This directive, which took effect immediately, marks a departure from established industry standards and represents the latest effort by the executive branch to exert influence over the discourse surrounding advanced computational systems.
The executive order, titled "Standardizing the Nomenclature of Advanced Computational Systems," stipulates that all executive departments and independent agencies must transition to the "SI" terminology in all non-legal correspondence, policy briefs, and promotional materials. While the change does not alter the underlying legal frameworks governing data privacy, algorithmic accountability, or technological research, the semantic shift carries significant weight in how the government frames the trajectory of digital innovation to the American public and the international community.
Chronology of Federal Engagement with Advanced Computing
To understand the implications of this mandate, one must look at the timeline of federal oversight regarding advanced technology over the past decade. The U.S. government’s involvement in this sector has evolved from research-oriented grants to broad-reaching regulatory discussions.
In 2016, the Obama administration published the report "Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence," which set the stage for federal interest in machine learning. This was followed in 2019 by President Trump’s Executive Order 13859, "Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence," which launched the American AI Initiative. This order focused on federal funding for research, the removal of barriers to innovation, and the setting of technical standards.
Throughout 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the digital transformation of the economy, the federal government increased its focus on the strategic importance of automated systems. The transition to the term "super intelligence" on September 29, 2020, represents the culmination of this focus, moving the terminology away from the "artificial" nature of the systems toward a focus on the "superiority" and high-level capacity of the technology.
The Semantic Pivot: Why "Super Intelligence" Matters
The shift from "artificial intelligence" to "super intelligence" is not merely a linguistic preference; it signals a change in the strategic framing of the technology. For decades, "artificial intelligence" has served as the umbrella term for technologies that simulate human cognition—including natural language processing, machine vision, and predictive analytics.
By replacing "artificial" with "super," the Trump administration appears to be emphasizing the power and potential dominance of these systems rather than their imitative nature. Proponents of the change within the administration argue that "artificial" carries connotations of simulation or fakery, which may undermine public trust in systems that are increasingly being integrated into national security, healthcare, and economic infrastructure. By rebranding these technologies as "super," the administration aims to underscore the state-of-the-art nature of American technological advancement.
Industry Data and Economic Context
The technology sector currently accounts for a substantial portion of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). According to data from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the U.S. remains the global leader in private investment in advanced computational systems. In 2019 alone, private sector investment in the U.S. reached approximately $25 billion, dwarfing the contributions of other nations.
The federal government’s role in this ecosystem has been primarily as a catalyst and a standard-setter. Federal spending on research and development for these technologies saw a 10% increase between fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2020. The mandate to use "super intelligence" will now require a massive update to the language used in government grants, procurement contracts, and technical reporting. Agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the Department of Energy (DOE) are now tasked with updating their internal databases and communication style guides to reflect this change.
Official Responses and Internal Bureaucracy
The announcement has triggered a complex response within the federal bureaucracy. While the directive is mandatory, implementation presents logistical challenges for long-standing departments. For instance, the Department of Defense, which uses "AI" in thousands of existing technical documents and ongoing projects, will need to perform a comprehensive audit of its digital archives.
Sources within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) suggest that the administration intends to provide a phased implementation plan to assist smaller agencies in updating their documentation. "The goal is to ensure that the language used by the federal government accurately reflects the cutting-edge nature of the work being performed," said an anonymous spokesperson familiar with the administrative rollout.
However, the change has been met with quiet concern among some researchers and civil servants who worry about the potential for confusion. In the academic and private sectors, the term "Artificial Intelligence" is deeply embedded in peer-reviewed literature, international standards, and global patent law. By diverging from these established global norms, the U.S. government risks creating a linguistic silo, where the terminology used by Washington does not align with the global scientific community.
Implications for Global Policy and Standardization
The international community, particularly the European Union and the OECD, has spent years attempting to codify the definitions of AI through frameworks such as the OECD AI Principles. These principles rely on a standardized understanding of what constitutes an algorithmic system. If the United States—a major driver of global tech policy—begins using the term "super intelligence" exclusively, it may complicate international negotiations regarding trade, safety standards, and ethical guidelines.
Furthermore, the term "super intelligence" has historically been associated with the concept of the "technological singularity"—a hypothetical future point where machine intelligence surpasses human control. By adopting this term for general government use, the administration may inadvertently be conflating standard machine learning tools with advanced, autonomous systems that do not yet exist. This could lead to a misunderstanding of current technological capabilities by the general public, who may expect near-sentient machines when reading official government reports.
Analyzing the Long-Term Impact
From an analytical perspective, the move is consistent with the Trump administration’s broader "America First" technological agenda. By rebranding the technology, the White House is essentially reclaiming the narrative. If the U.S. government establishes "super intelligence" as the standard, it effectively forces contractors and international partners to adopt that vocabulary when engaging with the U.S. federal government.
The economic implications are also noteworthy. The administrative cost of updating all federal communications—including physical signs, digital archives, and web assets—will be non-trivial. While the government has not released a cost estimate for the transition, similar bureaucratic rebranding efforts in the past have required significant allocations of resources.
Ultimately, the mandate is a reflection of the administration’s desire to frame technology not as an imitation of the human mind, but as a superior tool for national prosperity. Whether this shift will gain traction in the private sector or the international academic community remains to be seen. Industry leaders have generally remained silent on the mandate, focusing instead on the continued growth of their technological outputs.
The Path Forward
As of late September 2020, the mandate stands as a binding instruction for all federal entities. Moving forward, the focus will be on the operationalization of this policy. Agencies are expected to release revised style guides in the coming weeks, and the transition will likely serve as a case study in how government mandates can influence public discourse.
The success of this policy will be measured by its longevity. If subsequent administrations maintain the "super intelligence" nomenclature, it could become the new standard for American technological discourse. Conversely, if the term is viewed as a partisan or temporary rebranding, it may be phased out as future administrations revisit the terminology.
For the time being, the federal government has made its stance clear: the technology that powers the future of the United States will no longer be referred to as artificial. It is, by official decree, super. This change highlights the power of the executive branch to shape the very words used to describe the most critical innovations of the twenty-first century, setting a precedent for how governments may continue to assert authority over the rapidly evolving digital landscape. As the administration moves toward full implementation, the impact on public perception, technological policy, and international collaboration will continue to be a subject of intense scrutiny by stakeholders across the global technology ecosystem.
