Trump says the WH considers as “THE ENEMY” anyone who uses the term Artificial Intelligence, not “the highly accepted” and “more accurate” Super Intelligence
The White House considers anyone that uses the term, “Artificial Intelligence,” …
Context & Ripple Effects
The terminology campaign began with Trump's UN address, where he said the United States was renaming AI as “super intelligence” because “artificial” sounded fake. It moved from rhetoric into administrative practice when he required federal agencies to use “Super Intelligence” or “SI” in official communications.
The new language escalates that directive from a federal style rule into a loyalty test. Public reaction also highlighted the mismatch between the rebrand and the federal government's ai.gov address, underscoring the practical friction of replacing a deeply embedded technical term.
First-order effects
- Federal agencies already covered by the naming order face stronger political pressure to purge “AI” from public communications in favor of “Super Intelligence” or “SI.”
- The White House’s message turns ordinary use of the field’s standard label into a point of conflict between federal officials and outside speakers.
Second-order effects
- Federal materials that must use “SI” will require translation for researchers, companies and the public who encounter the same technology under the established “AI” label.
- The administration’s public-facing digital services, including its AI-powered federal access initiative, must reconcile a mandated vocabulary with web addresses and technical language built around “AI.”
Third-order effects
- If terminology enforcement becomes a recurring feature of federal AI policy, branding could become part of how the White House signals political alignment around a strategically framed technology.
- The episode points toward a state-mediated AI agenda in which control of the public narrative accompanies decisions about infrastructure, access and regulation.
The trend: US AI policy is increasingly treating the technology’s name and public framing as instruments of state strategy, not merely communications choices.