Super Intelligence" Gets 60-Day Deadline: Federal Definition and Legislative Proposal to Be in Place
On September 29, 2026, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to stop using "Artificial Intelligence" and instead call the technology "Super Intelligence." The same day, Trump and six tech executives signed an entirely voluntary two-page document, the "White House Accord on Super Intelligence" — a document that makes no mention of any name change at all. Here is what the order actually changes (so far, very little), what it does not change, and the three questions that will determine whether this becomes more than a rebrand.
What the order actually says
According to the White House fact sheet of September 29, 2026, Trump signed the executive order to "replace the term 'Artificial Intelligence' ('AI') with 'Super Intelligence' ('SI') across the executive branch," in recognition of "the continuously advancing technological frontier and the boundless promise it offers the American people" (fact sheet, White House).
Concretely, the order directs all departments and agencies to use the terms "Super Intelligence" and "SI" in official correspondence, public communications, policy documents and non-statutory documents — and to "no longer acknowledge" the terms "Artificial Intelligence" or "AI."
Trump argues in the order that the name change is about substance, not just words: "The term 'Super Intelligence' more appropriately captures the promise, potential, and rapidly advancing capabilities of these technologies," he writes, according to Fox Business.
What actually changes — and what does not
In practice, the documented scope is narrow. According to NewsNation via Yahoo News, the change does not require the government to rewrite previously issued regulations, presidential actions, contracts, grants or historical documents. And "super intelligence," according to the same coverage, covers the same technologies as the existing statutory definition of AI.
In other words: the same technology domain, the same legal basis — a new word in official communications. What changes for now is the terminology in agencies' own documents and messaging, not the content of the rules.
The definition and the 60-day clock
The order also carries a concrete mandate with a deadline. The White House fact sheet states that the order tasks the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST) with proposing a federal definition of "Super Intelligence" and "SI" that "reflects the state of this extraordinary frontier technology," and with identifying any further executive action needed to implement the definition.
According to NewsNation/Yahoo News, the APST must also propose legislation within 60 days. This is the item most worth watching: a bill establishing a federal SI definition could give the term real legal content — something the order itself does not have today. How a "super intelligence" is to be defined so that it covers the same technologies as today's statutory AI definition remains an open question.
The accord: a separate document, a voluntary commitment
The same day, after a White House luncheon with tech executives, Trump shared a separate two-page document on Truth Social: the "White House Accord on Super Intelligence." According to CNBC, the document contains no declaration of a name change — the only place Trump's new term appears is in the title.
According to CNBC, the Truth Social post shows the accord is signed by Trump and six tech executives: Sundar Pichai (Google), Elon Musk (Tesla and SpaceX), Dario Amodei (Anthropic), Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Greg Brockman (OpenAI) and Jensen Huang (Nvidia).
The accord's content, according to USA TODAY, consists of commitments that the companies maintain "robust internal processes and controls to ensure that their technology behaves as intended," independent external audits, and oversight through independent governance committees. All voluntary.
Trump called the accord "morally binding," but the term has no defined legal meaning, and no enforcement mechanism is documented. It is also important to keep the two documents distinct: the six tech executives' signatures apply to the accord — not necessarily to the name change itself, which none of them has declared agreement with in the available sources.
At the event, Amodei reiterated his safety focus: "We all need to work together to make sure that we can win, and we can win safely if we do this right," he said, according to Business Insider.
Political context — reported, not explained
The timing is striking: the order was signed just weeks before the US midterm election. CNBC reports that several recent polls show a majority of Americans are concerned about AI and dislike how Trump has handled the issue. It should be noted, however, that CNBC does not name the specific polls in its coverage, so the claims cannot be verified against specific surveys here. Whether the name change is a response to public concern is therefore an interpretation — not something the sources establish.
Trump himself told reporters that he is "seeing tremendous self-policing" in the industry, and that the administration is considering a ten-person committee to oversee the AI industry, according to CNBC Daily Open. Such a body is under consideration — not enacted.
The open questions
Three things will determine whether this becomes more than symbolism:
Compliance. Will agencies actually stop using "AI" in official documents, and consistently use "SI"? The order does not take effect on its own — it requires changes to everything from websites to correspondence across hundreds of agencies.
The definition. What will the APST's federal SI definition say, and what does the legislative proposal due within 60 days contain? This is where a terminology shift could acquire legal content — or prove impossible to define without simply restating today's AI definition.
Enforcement. The accord is voluntary, "morally binding" has no legal meaning, and no sanction mechanism is documented. The proposed ten-person committee is, for now, only a trial balloon.
One caveat to close: the full text of the executive order has not been published in the available source material — the coverage rests on the White House fact sheet and secondary reporting. The exact wording should be verified against the Federal Register once the order is published there.