Trump Orders Federal Agencies to Replace "Artificial Intelligence" with "Super Intelligence"

Trump’s Executive Order on Terminology

On September 29, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing all federal agencies to replace the term "artificial intelligence" with "super intelligence" or "SI" in official statements, websites, and reports. According to The Next Web, the order does not specify penalties for private or federal use of the old term.

The Justice Department issued a memo on October 6 instructing staff to adopt the new terminology in court filings "when appropriate," though compliance remains at the agency’s discretion.

Tech Industry Response

Some tech leaders have quickly adopted the new term. Elon Musk renamed his company’s AI unit to SpaceXSI, while Amazon, led by Jeff Bezos, has also begun using "SI" in internal and external communications. Despite this, marketing experts, such as Jean-Pierre Dubé of the University of Chicago, argue the redefined term is unlikely to gain widespread traction in the private sector.

The executive order does not bind private companies, but public-facing businesses may face indirect pressure to align with the government’s preferred terminology.

Legal and Constitutional Challenges

Legal experts and press freedom groups, including the Knight First Amendment Institute and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, argue that the government cannot enforce this terminology change on private entities due to First Amendment protections. The Next Web reports that the executive order explicitly states it creates no rights enforceable against the government or individuals.

This is not the first time the Trump administration has faced legal challenges over terminology. In 2025, the White House barred reporters from The Associated Press from press pool events for refusing to use "Gulf of America" instead of "Gulf of Mexico." A federal judge temporarily ordered access restored, though an appeals court later paused most of the ruling.

Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment scholar, cited the 2024 Supreme Court decision in NRA v. Vullo, which ruled that government officials cannot coerce private parties to suppress disfavored speech. This precedent may limit the enforceability of the executive order outside federal agencies.

Congressional and Regulatory Hurdles

The executive order acknowledges that the term "artificial intelligence" is defined in law under the National AI Initiative Act of 2020. Changing this definition requires congressional action. The President’s science adviser has until November 28 to propose legislative changes, but even if passed, the law would only apply to government usage.

In July 2026, the House of Representatives voted to rename the Pentagon as the "Department of War" as a secondary title. This move, like the executive order, reflects the administration’s broader push to redefine terminology in federal contexts.

What this means

Lazyfounder analysis — our interpretation, not reported fact.

This executive order is a symbolic move with limited immediate impact on private companies or the public. However, it signals the administration’s intent to reshape language in federal documents, which could influence future regulations, funding priorities, or public discourse.

For founders and operators in tech, the key takeaway is the distinction between compliance and choice. Federal contractors or grant recipients may need to adopt the new terminology to align with government communications, but private businesses are under no legal obligation to do so. That said, companies with close ties to the administration—such as those in defense, aerospace, or AI research—might feel pressure to conform publicly, even if only as a matter of optics.

The legal precedent here is critical. The First Amendment protects private entities from being forced to adopt government-preferred language, but it doesn’t shield them from indirect consequences, such as reduced access to government contracts or scrutiny from regulators. Founders should weigh the potential risks of resistance against the practical benefits of compliance, especially in highly regulated industries.

This episode also underscores the broader trend of governments attempting to control narratives through language. Whether in the US or abroad, startups operating in sensitive sectors—AI, defense, or media—should prepare for similar debates and ensure their legal and PR teams are aligned on how to respond.

Key takeaways

• Federal agencies must comply with the executive order, but private companies, media, and individuals are not legally required to adopt the new terminology.
• Founders and operators in tech should monitor legal developments, as terminology changes could impact contracts, marketing, or regulatory compliance.
• First Amendment protections limit the government’s ability to enforce terminology changes on private entities, but public-facing businesses may face pressure to conform.
• Historical precedent suggests legal challenges to such orders are likely, but outcomes may vary depending on judicial interpretation.

FAQ

Does this executive order apply to private companies?

No. The executive order only applies to federal agencies and departments. Private companies, media outlets, and individuals are not legally required to adopt the term "super intelligence."

What happens if a federal contractor uses "artificial intelligence" instead of "super intelligence"?

The executive order imposes no penalties for using the term "artificial intelligence," even for federal contractors. However, agencies may choose to prioritize contractors who align with the government’s preferred terminology in communications.

Can the government legally enforce this terminology change?

Legal experts argue that the government cannot enforce this change on private entities due to First Amendment protections. However, federal agencies and contractors may face indirect pressure to comply.

Has the Biden administration or Congress responded to this order?

The facts provided do not include a response from the Biden administration or Congress. However, changing the legal definition of "artificial intelligence" would require congressional action.

Related on Lazyfounder

• More policy news
• Amazon