Trump administration rebrands AI as "Super Intelligence" in loyalty test
In September 2026, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing U.S. government agencies to replace the term "artificial intelligence" with "Super Intelligence." The move, framed as a loyalty test, has split adoption among federal agencies and tech companies, with some complying while others resist or ignore the change.
Editor, Lazyfounder
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive order rebrands AI as "Super Intelligence"
In September 2026, President Donald Trump signed an executive order requiring U.S. government agencies to replace "artificial intelligence" with the term "Super Intelligence." The order, reportedly chosen over alternatives like "Extreme Intelligence" and "Supreme Intelligence," positions the new terminology as a test of political loyalty to the administration.
The stated rationale for the change is that AI systems "amplify human ingenuity" rather than merely "imitate" intelligence. However, critics argue the rebrand is less about substance and more about signaling allegiance to the administration, citing precedents like the exclusion of the Associated Press from White House events after it refused to adopt the term "Gulf of America."
Government agencies divided on adoption
Adoption of the new term has been inconsistent across federal agencies. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has begun using "Super Intelligence" or "SI" in solicitations, such as requests for "SI-powered" surveillance. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has also added disclaimers on its website warning visitors about the transition.
However, other agencies have resisted or ignored the change. The Pentagon announced an initiative called Project Meridian using the old terminology just one day after the order was signed. Health and Human Services and the Federal Trade Commission have yet to incorporate the new language into their communications, though the executive order exempts previously issued documents.
The Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office has not publicly commented on the rebrand, and the order’s limited scope may explain why some agencies continue to use "AI" in existing regulations.
Tech leaders sign White House Accord but adoption varies
Six tech CEOs—Sundar Pichai (Google), Dario Amodei (Anthropic), Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Greg Brockman (OpenAI), Elon Musk (xAI and SpaceX), and Jensen Huang (Nvidia)—signed the White House Accord on Super Intelligence. However, their public use of the term remains uneven.
During third-quarter earnings calls, only Zuckerberg and Musk consistently used "Super Intelligence," according to CNBC. Musk pledged to rename SpaceXAI to SpaceXSI, while Zuckerberg’s use aligns with Meta’s prior adoption of "superintelligence." Amazon, Microsoft, and Alphabet executives continued to use "AI" in their earnings calls, though Microsoft’s recent shareholder letter referred to the "Super Intelligence era."
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff is reportedly considering renaming the company’s AIForce product to SIForce, though no formal announcement has been made.
Costs and broader implications
The rebranding effort has raised concerns about its financial and practical costs. Government employees are reportedly spending time creating guides to navigate the transition, diverting resources from other priorities. The long-term impact on taxpayers remains unclear but could add to administrative overhead.
Analysts suggest the shift may also polarize national discourse on AI. A recent survey found Americans rank AI as a top issue in the upcoming midterm elections, with Democrats prioritizing it above abortion and gun policy. The politically charged rebrand could further entangle the technology in partisan debates.
What this means
Lazyfounder analysis — our interpretation, not reported fact.
For founders and operators, this story signals a growing intersection between policy and technology terminology—and the risks of politicization. Companies with U.S. government contracts or regulatory exposure may face pressure to adopt the new language, even if it creates inconsistency in branding or legal documents. Startups in AI-related fields should monitor how agencies like the FTC or Pentagon respond, as resistance could signal opportunities to align with existing frameworks rather than comply with a politically charged directive.
The uneven adoption by tech leaders also highlights the balancing act between political optics and operational clarity. While some CEOs may use the term to maintain favor with the administration, others may avoid it to preserve neutrality or avoid confusion in global markets. Founders should weigh the potential costs—such as rebranding, legal reviews, or customer communication—against the likelihood of enforcement or reputational benefits.
Related on Lazyfounder
Sources
- MIT Technology Review · 2026-11-03
Here’s who is falling in line for Trump’s “Super Intelligence” loyalty test
This story is an original summary drafted with AI by Lazyfounder from the reporting listed above and checked by automated validation. Facts are attributed to their original publishers; sections marked as analysis are Lazyfounder's. Where a source is in another language, facts were machine-translated and quotations are reported, not reproduced. Read the original coverage via the links, and see our AI policy and corrections policy.
About the author
Editor, Lazyfounder
Tarun Mottlia edits LazyFounders, covering Indian startups, funding rounds, AI and product launches. Every story on the site is AI-assisted and checked against its cited sources before publication.
More stories by Tarun MottliaGet the LazyFounder Brief
Startup, funding and AI news in a five-minute read. Join the early-access list.
