Trump Wants to Rename AI and Create a New AI Team
President Donald Trump posted a Truth Social poll on September 19, 2026, asking if Artificial Intelligence should be renamed Superior Intelligence, Extreme Intelligence or Supreme Intelligence. TechCrunch
In the same post, he said the words Artificial Intelligence are inaccurate and very ineloquent next to AI. A new name would not change what is under the hood, how the systems are built, trained or controlled. It would only change how leaders talk about them.
Trump also said he will create an AI Force like the Space Force he set up in his first term. The post describes a plan, not a real military branch. It gave no structure, budget, legal power or timing.
He said he will name an AI Czar soon and that “only high I.Q. individuals need apply.” The job has been open since David Sacks left as AI and crypto czar earlier in 2026 to co-chair the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Trump said he will cherish, help, and watch over the AI industry as it grows. In the same message, he called attempts at the decimation or destruction of AI hoaxes generated by Radical Left Democrats.
That message came after a week of debate about AI rules. Trump rejected calls for stronger oversight of artificial intelligence even though industry leaders warned the technology is moving fast. PBS
He also said he uses AI for “a lot of things” but did not say how. FOX 10 That statement came as Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei warned about risks from AI agents, helpers that can use tools, remember details and act across programs without a person approving each step.
Trump separately said “very negative forces” were raising exaggerated concerns over AI. Reuters In his second term, his administration has mostly supported AI companies, according to the same reporting.
The broader context here is simple. Who names the technology and who is in charge often decides what gets built. A new name does not change safety tests, attack checks, access rules or emergency plans, but words from Washington end up in buying papers, grant terms, rule checklists and ads.
In my view, the how matters more than the name. If an AI Force goes past a social media idea, questions follow. Would it handle computers, safety checks, government buying or daily use. Would it copy work already done by the Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, NIST and the intelligence community, or pull that work together. None of that has been explained.
Looking at what this means for builders and buyers, staff choices shape rules. A czar who cannot make laws can still guide agencies, steer money and shape how voluntary promises are read. With Sacks now at PCAST, the next pick will show if the White House wants a dealmaker, a technical manager or a rule enforcer.
In my view, the split is now clear. Top labs warn about helpers that act alone while the White House rejects more rules and promises to protect growth. That does not change the basic safety work: keeping tool use in a safe box, writing down what agents do, blocking extra access and testing failures before wide release. Whatever Washington calls it, that work goes on, and the good these systems can do depends on doing it well.
