Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
A US executive order signed September 29, 2026 directs federal agencies, to the extent the law permits, to write "Super Intelligence" and "SI" where they would have written "Artificial Intelligence" and "AI" in non-statutory documents, while keeping the existing statutory definition and creating no enforceable rights
The signed order changes the words federal agencies use in their own documents, to the extent the law allows. It leaves the statutory definition of artificial intelligence in place for now, puts no duty on contractors or grant applicants, and sends a new federal definition only as far as a proposal due to the President.
Bottom line: A signed executive order, in effect as an internal direction to executive agencies and qualified throughout by "to the maximum extent permitted by law". It creates no duty for contractors, grant writers or any other private party, and Sec. 4(c) says it creates no right enforceable by any party. The new federal definition it mentions is at proposal stage only.
Who this affects: Federal contractors and their contracts and proposal teams, grant writers and sponsored-research offices, government-facing counsel, and compliance officers who read or draft agency correspondence, reports and policy documents that discuss AI.
Issue date: Signed September 29, 2026. Under Sec. 3(b), the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology has 60 days from that date to submit proposed legislative language to the President; on our count, that is November 28, 2026.
What changed: Under the signed order, agencies are directed, to the extent the law permits, to use "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. Statutes, earlier regulations, contracts and grants are not rewritten by it.
Analysis: On our reading, the order changes agency vocabulary and leaves the law's meaning where it was. Sec. 3(a) defines Super Intelligence by pointing back to the existing statutory definition of artificial intelligence, so for this order the two labels cover the same technologies. The order itself names later Presidential action or an Act of Congress as the routes to supersede that definition.
Primary sources: Inaugurating The Era Of Super Intelligence, executive order, The White House, September 29, 2026 · White House fact sheet on the US-China state visit, September 25, 2026
- Instrument (EN)
- Executive order, Inaugurating The Era Of Super Intelligence (no order number printed on the White House text)
- Authority
- The President of the United States, signed by Donald J. Trump
- Jurisdiction
- United States, federal executive branch
- Status
- Signed September 29, 2026. Sec. 3(b) proposed legislative language not yet due; it is a proposal to the President, not enacted law
- Bindingness
- Directs executive departments and agencies only, to the maximum extent permitted by law. Creates no private-sector duty and, under Sec. 4(c), no right or benefit enforceable at law or in equity
- Issue date / next deadline
- September 29, 2026. APST proposal due within 60 days of that date (on our count, November 28, 2026)
- Definition used
- For this order, Super Intelligence and SI mean the technologies and systems covered by "artificial intelligence" as defined in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3) (Sec. 3(a))
- Not affected
- Under Sec. 2(b), the order does not require alteration of previously issued regulations, Presidential actions, contracts, grants or other historical documents
- Primary source
- https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/09/inaugurating-the-era-of-super-intelligence/
What does the order direct agencies to do?
The order, signed September 29, 2026, is a direction to the executive branch. Section 1 sets out the policy in one sentence, quoted on this page in full: the executive branch is to use the terms "Super Intelligence" and "SI" in place of "Artificial Intelligence" and "AI", to the maximum extent permitted by law, and "will not acknowledge the usage of" the older terms "in any applicable setting".
Section 2(a) of the signed order says where the instruction applies. Executive departments and agencies, again only to the maximum extent permitted by law, are told to make the substitution in "official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports, policy documents, and other non-statutory documents within the executive branch". That list covers documents agencies write. It does not mention statutes, and the order does not try to amend any.
The order does not define "applicable setting" and does not say what declining to acknowledge a usage involves in practice. We do not read either phrase as an instruction to reject documents from outside parties, because the text does not say that.
Does it put any duty on contractors, grant writers or other private parties?
No duty of that kind appears in the signed order. Nothing in it addresses contractors, grant applicants, grantees or any other private party, and nothing in it tells them which word to use. The only actors it directs are agencies, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST) and, for publication costs under Sec. 4(d), the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Section 4(c) of the signed order closes the point from the other side. The order "is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States", its agencies, officers, employees or agents, or any other person. Section 4(b) adds that the order is to be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to appropriations.
On our reading, a proposal, report or grant narrative that says "AI" breaches nothing in this order. Whether a particular agency later changes its own templates or solicitations is a separate question the order leaves to agencies, within the limits of law, and we have seen no such agency document.
What happens to existing regulations, contracts and grants?
Section 2(b) of the signed order reads in full: "Nothing in this section requires the alteration of previously issued regulations, Presidential actions, contracts, grants, or other historical documents."
In the signed order, the wording is a carve-out from a requirement. It says the order does not require those documents to be altered; it does not say they cannot be. Read narrowly, and on our interpretation, an existing award or regulation that uses "artificial intelligence" is untouched by this order unless something else changes it.
The carve-out sits in Sec. 2 and refers to previously issued documents. The order does not say how it applies to a contract or grant issued after September 29, 2026, and we make no assumption about that.
Has the legal definition of artificial intelligence changed?
The signed order itself does not change it. Section 3(a) says that for purposes of the order, and except where otherwise provided by law, Super Intelligence and SI mean the technologies and systems encompassed by the term "artificial intelligence" as defined in section 9401(3) of title 15, United States Code. That definition governs implementation unless and until superseded by subsequent Presidential action consistent with applicable law or by an Act of Congress.
Section 3(b) starts a separate step, and it is a proposal stage only. Within 60 days of the order, the APST, consulting other agency heads as the APST deems appropriate, is to submit to the President "proposed legislative language to establish a Federal definition of "Super Intelligence" and "SI"". The proposal is to cover whether the new definition should modify, expand upon or supersede the statutory definition of artificial intelligence, any conforming amendments to statutory references to "artificial intelligence" and "AI", and recommendations for further Presidential or executive action.
Proposed language submitted to the President is not law. The order itself names an Act of Congress or later Presidential action as the routes by which the Sec. 3(a) definition would be superseded.
How does the US-China fact sheet fit in?
The fact sheet is context for this piece and nothing more. A White House fact sheet dated September 25, 2026, on the US-China state visit, says the two countries established a "U.S.-China Super Intelligence (SI) Dialogue". That is the White House's account of a bilateral meeting, not a legal instrument, and the executive order of September 29 does not refer to it. We did not open any readout from the government of the People's Republic of China and make no statement about China's position on the terminology.
What we did not verify
What we opened: the full text of the executive order as published on whitehouse.gov, fetched on October 1, 2026, including Sections 1 to 4, the signature block dated September 29, 2026, and the page heading. We also opened the White House fact sheet of September 25, 2026 on the US-China state visit, and read its final section.
What we did not open: the Federal Register, so we cannot give an executive order number or a Federal Register citation, and none is printed on the White House text; the statutory text of 15 U.S.C. 9401(3), which the order cites but does not reproduce; the White House fact sheet on this order; any agency implementing memo, template or solicitation; any readout or statement by the government of the People's Republic of China.
What we refuse to claim: that the order binds contractors, grant applicants or any private party; that it forbids changes to earlier regulations, contracts or grants; that it changes the statutory meaning of artificial intelligence; that the Sec. 3(b) proposal has been submitted, published or enacted; that the September 25 fact sheet caused or led to the order; what agencies will do in practice; and any characterisation of China's position.
Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
Nothing in this signed order tells a contractor, grant writer or other private party which term to use, and Sec. 4(c) says it creates no enforceable right. What it changes is agency vocabulary in non-statutory documents, to the extent the law permits, with the statutory definition of artificial intelligence still governing; a new federal definition exists only as a proposal due to the President within 60 days.
Source File
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/09/inaugurating-the-era-of-super-intelligence/
Open the order on whitehouse.gov and confirm four things: the policy sentence and "to the maximum extent permitted by law" in Sec. 1, the list of non-statutory documents in Sec. 2(a) and the carve-out in Sec. 2(b), the 15 U.S.C. 9401(3) definition and the 60-day APST proposal in Sec. 3, and the no-enforceable-right clause in Sec. 4(c), with the September 29, 2026 signature date.
It is therefore the policy of my Administration that, to the maximum extent permitted by law, the executive branch shall use the terms "Super Intelligence" and "SI" in place of "Artificial Intelligence" and "AI" and will not acknowledge the usage of "Artificial Intelligence" and "AI" in any applicable setting. ยท Executive order, Inaugurating The Era Of Super Intelligence, Sec. 1, The White House, September 29, 2026
FAQ
Do federal contractors or grant applicants now have to stop writing "AI"?
Not under this order. The signed order directs executive departments and agencies only, to the maximum extent permitted by law, and says nothing about the words contractors, grant applicants or other private parties use. Sec. 4(c) says it creates no right or benefit enforceable at law or in equity by any party.
Do existing contracts, grants or regulations have to be rewritten?
No. Sec. 2(b) says nothing in that section requires the alteration of previously issued regulations, Presidential actions, contracts, grants or other historical documents. The order does not prohibit changes to them either; it simply does not require any.
Has the legal definition of AI changed?
No. Under Sec. 3(a), for purposes of the order, Super Intelligence and SI mean what "artificial intelligence" means under 15 U.S.C. 9401(3). Sec. 3(b) asks the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology to submit proposed legislative language for a new federal definition within 60 days. That is a proposal to the President, not enacted law.
What does "will not acknowledge the usage of" mean in practice?
The order does not say, and it does not define "applicable setting". The phrase sits in the policy statement in Sec. 1, which is qualified by "to the maximum extent permitted by law". We found nothing in the text that tells agencies to reject outside documents that use "AI".
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.