Trump pledges federal shift from 'artificial intelligence' to 'super intelligence'

Donald Trump has pledged to prohibit the phrase "artificial intelligence" across federal documentation, mandating the adoption of "super intelligence" in its place.

The proposed policy targets executive branch records, agency guidelines, and federal procurement frameworks. Federal departments currently maintain thousands of active regulatory texts, grant solicitations, and policy memoranda that feature the standard phrase. Under the stated plan, federal personnel would be required to excise the established terminology from official registers. That change would alter drafting protocols for executive orders, agency rules, and intra-governmental communications across every cabinet department.

Federal documentation routinely relies on standardised vocabulary to establish technical thresholds and operational criteria. In computer science, superintelligence typically refers to systems exceeding human cognitive capabilities across every measure. Federal programmes currently govern narrower models, such as machine learning systems used for predictive analysis and automated data processing. Reclassifying all such tools under the umbrella of "super intelligence" in federal paperwork introduces ambiguity into administrative oversight. Regulatory definitions establish legal obligations, and changing foundational language alters how agencies interpret statutory mandates.

Enforcing the language prohibition across civil and defence agencies would require an extensive administrative effort. Bodies including the Department of Commerce and the Department of Defence deploy the standard phrase across technical rubrics. Procurement officers use established definitions to solicit bids, evaluate contractor proposals, and benchmark operational software. Revising these standard documents would require departments to redraft internal manuals and issue formal guidance clarifying that "super intelligence" covers all previously classified automated workflows.

The mandate would mark a distinct divergence between federal government terminology and the conventions of international technical bodies. Standards consortia and commercial vendors maintain established taxonomies built around the traditional term. Can federal agencies execute an administrative rebrand across legal documentation without destabilising existing regulatory frameworks?