EO-14434
Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence
- Signed
- Sep 29, 2026
- Published
- Oct 2, 2026
Federal Register: 2026-20321
Source: Federal Register.
Federal Agencies to Use "Super Intelligence" Instead of "Artificial Intelligence"
What it does
The order directs executive branch agencies to use the terms "Super Intelligence" and "SI" in place of "Artificial Intelligence" and "AI" in official correspondence, websites, reports, and other non-statutory documents, to the extent the law allows. It defines the new terms as having the same meaning as the existing statutory definition of artificial intelligence in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3). It also directs the President's science advisor to send proposed legislative language within 60 days for a separate federal definition of "Super Intelligence." Existing regulations, contracts, grants, and historical documents do not have to be changed.
Who benefits
The Administration and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which gain a unified branding for federal technology messaging. AI companies and research institutions that may favor language emphasizing the technology's capabilities and promise. Federal communications staff who receive a single, clear terminology instruction. Congressional drafters and agency lawyers who would receive a proposed legal definition to review, and who may value a clarified definition if Congress chooses to act. Supporters of a strong U.S. position in AI competition, who may see the naming as signaling national priority.
Who is affected
Federal agency staff, who must revise websites, reports, correspondence, and templates, which would take staff time and money within existing appropriations. Researchers, contractors, and grant applicants who work with agencies and may face mismatches between federal "SI" wording and the "AI" wording in statutes, contracts, and international or industry standards. Members of the public and journalists searching federal materials, who may find it harder to locate documents under the older term. International partners and standards bodies that still use "AI," which could cause confusion in joint documents. Technical experts who say "Super Intelligence" has a specific meaning in research debates, and who may view the term as inaccurate when applied to current systems. Agencies handling two sets of terms because statutes and prior documents keep "AI."
Supporters argue
Supporters would argue that the President directs how the executive branch communicates, and that language shapes public understanding. They would say current systems already do much more than imitate human thinking, so a new term better reflects their capabilities and signals national priority. They would note the order is low-cost, leaves existing laws, contracts, and regulations unchanged, keeps the current statutory definition for legal purposes, and sends any permanent definition to Congress through proposed legislation. They would also say a single consistent term across agencies reduces mixed messaging.
Opponents argue
Opponents would argue that renaming a technology does not change what it can do, and that "Super Intelligence" carries a specific meaning in technical debates about systems exceeding human ability, so applying it to current tools could mislead the public. They would say it would create inconsistency with statutes, contracts, international standards, and public search habits, while costing agency staff time and money. They would add that directing agencies not to "acknowledge" the older term could hinder clear communication and public access to information, and that the effort could be better spent on substantive technology policy.
Constitutional basis
Executive orders rest on constitutional authority or statutory delegation. This summary describes the legal grounding cited or implied by the order.
The order relies on the President's general authority under Article II, Section 1 (the executive power) and Article II, Section 3 (the duty to take care that laws are faithfully executed) to direct how executive agencies communicate and operate. It ties its definition to 15 U.S.C. 9401(3) and does not change any statute. A future president could revoke it by a new order, and it supplements rather than conflicts with existing legislation, since statutory references to "artificial intelligence" remain in force.