Trump says he will ban the term AI; a September order already says SI

President Donald Trump said the government would ban the term “artificial intelligence” in documents, Reuters reported on October 27, 2026. The Reuters dispatch, published on Investing.com, says the remarks were in a Truth Social post, and that he questioned why The Wall Street Journal was not using “super intelligence.” A White House PDF of Executive Order 14434, signed September 29, 2026, and printed in the Federal Register on October 2, already directs executive-branch agencies to use “Super Intelligence” and “SI” in a defined set of documents. This report quotes those texts. It is not legal advice, and it does not say which memo at which agency must change.

What Reuters reported from the post

Reuters quotes the post: “When will The Wall Street Journal start calling Artificial Intelligence (AI), a very bad and inaccurate name, SI (Super Intelligence), the name which virtually everyone else is using, or soon will be.” A second sentence in the same dispatch reads: “In short order, we will be officially BANNING the term, ‘AI/Artificial Intelligence,’ in all relevant documents, and everything else, due to its inaccuracy.” This desk read that language in the Reuters story. It did not take the sentences from a Truth Social archive of its own.

The dispatch’s lead says Trump said he would ban the term in documents and everything else. It does not describe a new order, memo, or Federal Register notice dated October 27.

What the September order already requires

Order 14434 is titled “Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence.” Section 2(a) says that, to the maximum extent permitted by law, executive departments and agencies shall 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. Section 1 states that policy and adds a second clause. It says the executive branch, “to the maximum extent permitted by law,” will use the new terms in place of the old ones “and will not acknowledge the usage of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and ‘AI’ in any applicable setting.”

Section 2(b) says nothing in that section requires alteration of previously issued regulations, presidential actions, contracts, grants, or other historical documents. Section 3(a) says that, for the order, and except where the law already provides otherwise, “Super Intelligence” and “SI” mean the technologies and systems covered by “artificial intelligence” as defined in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3). That definition stands, the order says, until a later presidential action consistent with law, or an act of Congress, supersedes it.

Section 3(b) gives the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology 60 days from September 29 to send the president proposed legislative language for a federal definition of the new terms. The proposal is to assess whether that definition should modify the statutory definition, include conforming amendments to statutory references, and recommend any further presidential or executive action. Section 4 says the order is implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to appropriations, and that it does not create a right enforceable in court.

The Federal Register copy is the same order, notice 2026–20321, in Volume 91.

A release that already uses the new label

On October 27, the General Services Administration’s announcement of a Claude discount, reported here, uses “Super Intelligence” in its subheading and “super intelligence agreements” in its savings sentence. An October 22 Treasury proposal, covered in the outbound-investment rule, uses the phrase “super intelligence systems” in a list of covered technologies. Both are agency documents from after September 29. Neither one is the October 27 social-media post.

Why it matters (analysis)

The post, as Reuters quotes it, speaks of a ban still to come, “in short order,” and it pairs “all relevant documents” with “everything else.” The order already in force names a narrower set: non-statutory executive-branch documents of the kinds in section 2(a), with the older records in section 2(b) left as they are, and with the statutory definition borrowed until Congress or a later presidential action changes it. The 60-day assignment is a request for proposed legislative language. It is not, on the face of the order, a completed rewrite of the statute. Anyone treating the social-media sentence as a list of documents that must be edited is past what the order’s text sets out. Other policy files are on the AI policy page.

This report is not legal, financial, or health advice. See the disclaimer.