Executive Order Rebrands AI as “Super Intelligence” and Signals Potential Federal Legislative Changes - Wiley Law

Executive Order Rebrands AI as “Super Intelligence” and Signals Potential Federal Legislative Changes

On September 29, 2026, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14434, Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence, directing Executive departments and agencies to prospectively use the term “Super Intelligence” (SI) in lieu of “Artificial Intelligence” (AI) across Executive Branch official communications and other non-statutory materials. The EO also initiates a process to review the current statutory definition of AI, propose a new federal definition for SI, and evaluate conforming amendments to existing federal statutes.

While the EO affirmatively states that it does not immediately alter previously issued regulations, Presidential actions, contracts, grants, or other technical documents, it is a statement of Administration policy to use the term SI in place of the term AI in official documents. The EO may have other ramifications if federal terminology begins to diverge from AI references used in existing international industry standards, industry best practices, state laws, corporate governance frameworks, and compliance programs.

Below, we summarize the key directives of the EO and identify some potential issues that may result from this policy change.

Change in Terminology

EO 14434 directs Executive departments and agencies, to the “maximum extent permitted by law,” to use “Super Intelligence” and “SI” in place of “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI” in official Executive Branch correspondence, public communications, websites, reports, policy documents, and other non-statutory materials. However, existing statutes, regulations, contracts, grants, and other previously issued documents will remain unchanged unless modified through future Executive or agency action or public law.

SI Encompasses the Existing Definition of AI in Title 15

For the purposes of the EO, SI encompasses the definition of “artificial intelligence” contained in the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act, 15 U.S.C. § 9401(3), as a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments. The EO changes federal terminology, not the substantive scope of technologies currently covered by federal law unless and until conforming statutory amendments are enacted.

Transitioning to a New Federal Definition of SI

EO 14434 directs the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), in consultation with the heads of other agencies as appropriate, to submit proposed legislative language to establish a federal definition of SI that includes potential changes in the statutory definition of AI, and further recommendations to the President necessary to implement the definition of SI throughout the Executive Branch.

APST Michael Kratsios outlined the Administration’s emerging approach to SI in a September 23 speech to the United Nations Security Council, where he emphasized that continued advances in SI present significant opportunities for economic growth, scientific discovery, and national competitiveness, while arguing that governments should avoid creating new international governance structures that could constrain innovation. He also highlighted ongoing U.S. efforts related to model testing and evaluation, cybersecurity coordination, and law enforcement tools to address harmful uses of SI, as well as promoting U.S. SI technology.

These points seem likely to be the foundation for any proposed changes to the definition and adaptations to related statutory uses, including in the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act, CHIPS and Science Act, and authorizations for NIST AI standards work and National Science Foundation and U.S. Department of Energy research.

As a result, we would expect to see federal agencies begin to use the new SI terminology in other documents, such as solicitations, guidance documents, reports, policy statements, and procurement-related materials. This transition has already begun. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which is the agency charged with developing voluntary AI standards, guidelines, best practices, and risk-management frameworks in collaboration with stakeholders, posted a statement on its website that it “is working to update its communications to incorporate the term ‘super intelligence’ as directed.”

Potential Implications for Federal Contractors and Regulated Entities

In the near term, the practical effects of replacing the terms “artificial intelligence” and “AI” with “super intelligence” and “SI” are likely to be procedural and administrative rather than substantive. Over time, however, if Congress adopts a new statutory definition of SI, that change could present implementation issues. For example, agency materials have leveraged the definition of “artificial intelligence” in 15 U.S.C. § 9401(3) in contract requirements, reporting obligations, grant programs, and agency guidance that are based on the current definition of AI, and many procurement-related policies, guidance documents, and Executive Branch requirements either expressly incorporate that definition or use definitions derived from it. Federal contractors, grant recipients, and other entities that do business with federal agencies should expect increasing use of the term SI in agency communications and procurement-related materials and seek clarification as needed to confirm that requirements remain the same.

Federal-State Regulatory Implications

The EO does not expressly address preemption of state AI laws. Preemption, however, could arguably be included in the legislative package being prepared for the President by the APST. To the extent that states do not adopt the new federal terminology and possible expanded definitions, industry stakeholders may face inconsistent and confusing legal frameworks, making compliance more burdensome.

Companies should monitor the forthcoming APST proposal for indications of how the Administration’s approach to federal and state regulation of SI may have evolved during the legislative language review by the APST, as well as recent public discourse around the safety and regulation of AI.

Takeaways

Although the EO does not expand the scope of regulated technologies, it expressly contemplates future legislative action that could redefine SI and amend existing federal statutes that reference AI. The EO also contemplates potentially expanding the definition of AI to reflect the state of “extraordinary frontier technology” beyond “simply imitating or automating human intelligence as is implied by the term ‘Artificial Intelligence.’”

Organizations should view EO 14434 as another step in the Administration’s broader effort in support of SI innovation and leadership by U.S. companies, which may expand the current statutory definition of AI to include frontier technologies.

***

Wiley’s Artificial Intelligence Practice counsels clients on AI compliance, risk management, and regulatory and policy approaches, and we engage with key government stakeholders in this quickly moving area. Please reach out to the authors with any questions.

Authors

- Partner

- Special Counsel

- Associate

- Associate

- Associate

- Associate