What’s in a Name? Executive Order Directs Agencies to Say “Super Intelligence,” Not “Artificial Intelligence”

On September 29, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14434, “Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence” (the EO), later published at 91 Fed. Reg. 63129 on October 2, 2026. The EO directs Executive Branch departments and agencies to use the terms “Super Intelligence” and “SI” in place of “artificial intelligence” and “AI” in official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports, policy documents, and other non-statutory documents within the Executive Branch. The takeaway for most companies is that the EO changes very little in the immediate future. It does not change any statute, it imposes no obligations on private parties, and it has no penalty or enforcement provision. However, one aspect of the EO could matter later. It starts a 60-day process to draft proposed legislation that could redefine what has been called artificial intelligence (AI).

The same day, the President and leaders of six technology companies signed the White House Accord on Super Intelligence, subtitled “Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities” (the Joint Commitment), a set of voluntary commitments on frontier model controls and audits. Although voluntary, commitments like this can over time shape expectations of reasonable conduct, including for companies that did not sign the Joint Commitment.

We break down what these new developments could mean for companies operating in this industry, and what may be coming next.

The EO in Brief

The EO requires agencies to use the new terms “to the maximum extent permitted by law” in official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports, policy documents, and other non-statutory documents. The EO states that the Executive Branch “will not acknowledge” the use of “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI” in any applicable setting. For now, “Super Intelligence” means the same thing as “Artificial Intelligence” under 15 U.S.C. § 9401(3), except where otherwise provided by law. The EO does not require agencies to alter previously issued regulations, presidential actions, contracts, grants, or other historical documents.

The President’s public comments on the EO have gone further than what the EO actually prescribes. On October 8, 2026, President Trump posted on Truth Social that the White House considers anyone who uses “Artificial Intelligence” rather than “Super Intelligence” “THE ENEMY,” although he did not identify any penalties for failure to use the new terms.

What Could Matter: A New Definition

Within 60 days of the EO — by late November 2026 — the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology must send the President proposed legislative language for a federal definition of “Super Intelligence.” The proposal must assess whether the new definition should modify, expand upon, or supersede the existing statutory definition of “artificial intelligence.” It also must propose any conforming amendments to statutes that use that term. The EO does not say whether the proposal will be made public.

Only Congress can change the statutory definition. If Congress adopts a new definition, whether broader or narrower, it could change which technologies, products, and services fall within laws that rely on the current definition of “artificial intelligence.” Companies that develop, sell, or deploy these technologies should watch this process.

A Practical Note for Companies That Deal With the Federal Government

Agencies are already changing their language. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, for example, posted a notice that it is updating its communications to use “super intelligence” as directed. Because the EO says the Executive Branch will not acknowledge the old terms, companies should carefully assess the language they use in proposals, filings, and responses to agency requests. When citing existing statutes, regulations, contracts, or grants, companies may still want to use the terms reflected in those documents.

The Joint Commitment: Voluntary, But Not Necessarily Without Consequence

The EO does not reference the Joint Commitment, which was signed by the President and by leaders of Google, Anthropic, Meta, OpenAI, SpaceXAI, and Nvidia. Coverage of the Joint Commitment has thus far focused on the companies that made these voluntary commitments, but the Joint Commitment also poses risks for companies that did not sign, including the signatories’ customers.

In particular, the Joint Commitment sets out four layers of controls and audits for companies operating in this industry, including:

1. Internal controls to monitor the capabilities and alignment of models during training and deployment in areas such as cybersecurity, biosecurity, and chemical threats, and to ensure models do not hack or access technical systems in unintended ways
2. An internal team to ensure the controls, monitoring, and detection are operating as intended and that issues are remediated
3. An independent external auditor or evaluator to assess whether the controls, monitoring, and detection are operating as intended
4. An independent committee of the board of directors to oversee and receive reports from the teams operating the controls and the internal and external auditors and evaluators, and to ensure issues are remediated

The Joint Commitment states that, “[o]ver time, it may make sense to codify these steps into laws or regulations.” And it does not limit these measures to the signatories — the Joint Commitment states that “every company that is training and deploying frontier models” should implement the four layers of controls and audits.

The Joint Commitment is consistent with the Trump administration’s prioritization of protecting innovation in AI, and its emphasis on voluntary efforts to address AI safety in lieu of comprehensive regulation, including through Executive Order 14409, “Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security.” However, the adoption of voluntary commitments may create and inform more durable standards over time. Certainly, signatories to voluntary commitments must be mindful of the possibility of enforcement actions if they fail to adhere to these commitments, ranging from actions brought for unfair or deceptive practices by private parties and regulators alike, or a Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action if a public company’s deviation from its public commitment amounts to a material misrepresentation.

The effects of such standards may have broader implications for companies that are not signatories to the voluntary commitments. For instance, the commitments may be adopted or reflected in contractual obligations or procurement terms that bind vendors to adhere to such standards, which could impact the AI supply chain as a whole. Voluntary standards also may be viewed over time as prevailing industry standards, implicating questions of reasonable care or insurance policies and coverage. And legislators and agencies often draft proposed regulations based on prevailing industry practices, turning what was once voluntary into standards with binding consequence.

Companies that develop and deploy AI should consider actions taken under the Joint Commitment — including its four layers and related guidance — as well as enforcement trends across the AI industry when shaping their own governance programs.

What’s Next?

• The proposed definition. Watch for the proposed legislative language in late November 2026, if it is made public.
• Agency terminology. Watch how agencies use the new terms in the documents and requests they issue.
• The Joint Commitment. Watch for the standards the companies develop, any move toward codification, and whether regulators or litigants cite the Joint Commitment.

We will continue to monitor these developments here on Enforcement Edge. For questions, please contact the authors or any member of Arnold & Porter’s White Collar Defense & Investigations practice group or the interdisciplinary Artificial Intelligence team.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 All Rights Reserved. This Blog post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.