OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Trump Orders AI Renamed Super Intelligence

6 sources · updated 2026-09-30
Left 67% Center 0% Right 33%
4 left · 0 center · 2 right

What happened

On September 29, 2026, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled "Inaugurating The Era Of Super Intelligence," directing all U.S. executive-branch departments and agencies to use "super intelligence" instead of "artificial intelligence" or "AI" in official correspondence, public communications, and policy documents; prior regulations and documents need not be revised. He announced the order at a White House event launching America.gov, after a luncheon with tech executives including Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and OpenAI President Greg Brockman. Those six executives and Trump signed a separate two-page "White House Accord on Super Intelligence" in which the companies pledged "robust internal processes and controls" so their technology "behaves as intended"; Trump called the accord "morally binding," while House Speaker Mike Johnson described it as a voluntary "statement of principles." Trump said "artificial" was the wrong word because the technology is "very powerful" and "very brilliant," told reporters the name had been "officially changed" by the executives, and said he had first raised the rebrand in a United Nations General Assembly speech the previous week; the accord those executives signed did not declare a name change.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 6 articles

5 of 5 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 5 of 5
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: President Trump, Donald Trump, Mike Johnson and President Donald Trump
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 4 of 5
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: executive order, press release
Credits another outlet 0 of 5
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 5
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 29, 18:58 UTC by The Hill, naming its source. First document within the hour, from Daily Wire (executive order).
Not counted 1
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Right-leaning coverage never reports the president's own standing on AI the day he ordered the government to stop calling it that. Left-leaning coverage, through CNBC, puts a same-afternoon survey at the center of the story: 25 percent approved of how he has handled the issue. The same report notes that this was his weakest result among several major topics tested. Right-leaning coverage instead reports public alarm about the technology itself and does not give Trump's mark. Left-leaning coverage leads with a "forced rebrand" under bad polls. Right-leaning coverage leads with accuracy, arguing the technology is not artificial, and with a case against slowing down while China competes. None of the coverage says what an agency should print when the statute it is carrying out still says artificial intelligence.
Bottom line

CNBC hung the rename on a 25 percent approval rating for Trump's handling of AI that never appears in right-leaning coverage.

The receipts — 3 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • A Quinnipiac poll released Tuesday afternoon found 25% approved of Trump's handling of AI numberin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • The two-page White House Accord signed by tech executives makes no declaration about a name change official statementin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • US officials will be expected not to acknowledge the terms artificial intelligence or AI in relevant settings official statementin The Verge, CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets treated the order as a cosmetic rebrand that substitutes a new label for regulation as public concern rises. CNBC reported a Quinnipiac University poll released the same day showing 25 percent of respondents approved of Trump's handling of AI versus 58 percent who disapproved, and noted that he has dismissed as a "hoax" dire warnings raised by some of the same executives at the luncheon. Sen. Mark Warner said the firms "are warning us that the technology is advancing faster than our safeguards," and that "The president's response? To rename it and tell the companies developing it to regulate themselves," adding that "changing what we call artificial intelligence does nothing to address the very real risks." The Verge called the shift "very strange," noting officials will be expected not to acknowledge "artificial intelligence" or "AI," and quoted Trump analogizing "artificial" to "fake news." CNBC further reported that Trump, asked why there should not be government-mandated safety guardrails, replied, "Because we have people that love our country and love the world a lot," and compared the episode to his earlier orders renaming the Gulf of Mexico the "Gulf of America" and asserting that Lake Ontario would be renamed "Lake America."
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage presented the change as a correction of language rather than a stunt, quoting Trump that the technology is "not artificial," that "the word super is the best word of all," and that it will "mostly be put to great use and we'll stop the bad use." The Daily Wire reported that the administration is betting on the technology to accelerate economic growth and help the United States outpace its debt, citing Trump's vow not to "stifle growth of something that will be bigger than the industrial revolution." It framed U.S. leadership as a national-security necessity against China, quoting former AI czar David Sacks that losing the race "would alter the balance of power in the world in a very unfavorable way," and Palantir CEO Alex Karp's argument that slowing down is not an option while China competes. The same outlet noted that Chinese public opinion is more favorable—one poll found 72 percent of Chinese respondents trust AI, versus 32 percent of Americans—and that Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, who visited the White House the previous week, had agreed to set up an AI safety channel between the two countries.
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is that a vocabulary mandate does not answer the safety problem the industry has itself described: the same-day Quinnipiac result (25 percent approval versus 58 percent disapproval of Trump's AI handling) and Warner's statement that renaming "does nothing to address the very real risks" are reinforced by the accord's terms, which leave controls voluntary and treat writing them into law as something that "may" make sense "over time." The right's strongest argument is that treating the technology chiefly as a danger to be slowed would forfeit a contest the administration considers existential, a claim supported by Sacks's warning that losing to China "would alter the balance of power in the world in a very unfavorable way," by Karp's insistence that slowing down is not an option while China competes, and by Trump's refusal to "stifle growth of something that will be bigger than the industrial revolution." The central unresolved tension is whether a government-enforced name change plus morally binding self-regulation can manage the risks executives have publicly flagged without, in the administration's view, ceding the lead to China.

6 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.