Trump Seeks to Ban ‘AI’ in Federal Documents

President Trump said Tuesday he would ban the term “artificial intelligence” from “all relevant documents and everything else,” while an executive order directs the executive branch to use his preferred label, “Super Intelligence,” or “SI.” The order reaches federal agencies; according to The Verge, Trump could legally require the change only of executive-branch agencies. The government can rename its own language. Its reach beyond that is another matter.

Who Gets to Name It

In a Truth Social post, Trump said: “In short order, we will be officially BANNING the term, ‘AI/Artificial Intelligence,’ in all relevant documents, and everything else, due to its inaccuracy.” He also pressed The Wall Street Journal to drop what he called a “very bad and inaccurate name” and use “SI (Super Intelligence), the name which virtually everyone else is using, or soon will be.” That assertion about what “virtually everyone else” uses came from Trump; the article provides no independent measure of public usage.

Trump signed an executive order in September directing the executive branch to use SI instead of AI. The Verge reported that the legal requirement could apply only to executive-branch agencies. The difference matters: an order can bind the apparatus under executive control, but the report doesn't describe a general ban on everyone using the term.

Earlier in October, Trump wrote on Truth Social that the White House “considers anyone that uses the term, ‘Artificial Intelligence,’ as opposed to the highly accepted new and more accurate term, ‘Super Intelligence,’ THE ENEMY!” At the United Nations General Assembly the previous month, he said the United States would rename AI to SI in documents. He also said: “The United States also totally rejects any attempt to construct a globality scheme to control for the artificial intelligence being spoken of so much now, hereinafter called super intelligence. Changing the name.”

A Federal Project, a Political Fight

Trump explained his terminology at the General Assembly: “The use of the word artificial makes intelligence sound fake. It is not fake. It's actually amazing. But we have to be careful. In fact, it is exactly the opposite of what it purports.” The government’s chosen language is being recast as a matter of accuracy, while the executive order makes that choice a requirement for federal agencies.

Earlier in October, Trump announced a “Super Intelligence Force” led by Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton. Trump said the group would coordinate the federal government’s work to maintain U.S. leadership in Super Intelligence. He said it would coordinate federal engagement with consumers, public-interest groups, religious organizations, critical-infrastructure providers and Super Intelligence companies. His stated rationale was that the technology “many say is bigger than the Industrial Revolution, and the Internet, and will protect the interests, and improve the lives, of all Americans.”

The article describes a federal coordinating body and its planned engagement with those groups; it doesn't report a community-led response or mutual-aid effort. The power described here runs through executive agencies and a group led by a federal intelligence official.

Big Tech on the Campaign Trail

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was seeking advertisements criticizing Republican candidates’ records on AI and data centers in dozens of key House races, The Hill reported. Thirty-one of the DCCC’s 69 “redboxes,” which outline potential campaign messaging, mentioned Republican support for data-center tax incentives and investments in or contributions from AI-infrastructure developers. The Tech Oversight Project shared the report with The Hill.

The targets included Republican Reps. Eli Crane of Arizona, Bill Huizenga of Michigan, Bryan Steil of Wisconsin and Mike Lawler of New York. For Huizenga, the suggested messaging called for “voters” to see “aggressive, hard-hitting ads” in the Grand Rapids media market about his support for “unleashing data centers across Michigan.” For Steil, it called for district-wide mail, particularly in the Madison media market, about support from political action committees tied to data-center developers.

Montana House candidate Sam Forstag criticized Republican opponent Aaron Flint in an ad about AI and data centers. The reported response is electoral campaigning: advertisements, mail and candidate criticism, not a reported change to the federal order or the data-center incentives. Tech Oversight Project executive director Sacha Haworth said: “For the first time, the balance of power in Congress will be determined by how voters feel about Big Tech and AI.”

Haworth also said: “If Democrats take back control of Congress, they need to govern how they campaigned: by putting Big Tech to the sword, investigating them for corruption, and rolling back the handouts and giveaways that Republicans gave them.” That is a call for action if Democrats win control; the report offers no outcome, only campaign plans and the executive branch’s existing naming directive.