Executive Order 14434: What 'Super Intelligence' Means Now

Executive Order 14434, "Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence", is a two-page order published in the Federal Register on 2026-10-02 (91 FR 63129). It does three things: it renames the technology inside the executive branch, it pins the new name to the old legal definition, and it orders a proposal for a new definition by 2026-11-28.

Our take: for now this is a vocabulary change with a deadline attached. The deadline is the part that matters to anyone with legal or contract exposure.

What the super intelligence executive order says#

The order has four sections. Quotes below are from the White House text.

Section 1, purpose. It argues that frontier systems "far exceed what was envisioned" when the term "Artificial Intelligence" was coined, and sets the policy that 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", to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Section 2, implementation. Agencies must use the new terms in "official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports, policy documents, and other non-statutory documents." Section 2(b) says nothing "requires the alteration of previously issued regulations, Presidential actions, contracts, grants, or other historical documents."

Section 3, definition. SI means the technologies "encompassed by the term 'artificial intelligence' as defined in section 9401(3) of title 15", until superseded by later Presidential action or an Act of Congress. Section 3(b) starts the 60-day clock on a new definition.

Section 4, general provisions. Standard language: no effect on agencies' legal authority, subject to appropriations, and no "right or benefit... enforceable at law or in equity by any party." The Office of Science and Technology Policy pays for publication.

What changes legally under 15 U.S.C. 9401, and what does not#

The definition the order borrows comes from the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. 9401(3). It reads, in full: "a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations or decisions influencing real or virtual environments." Such systems use inputs to perceive environments, abstract those perceptions into models, and use model inference to formulate options.

That is a broad, capability-neutral definition. A fraud-scoring model and a frontier chatbot both fit. So, in law, "Super Intelligence" today covers the same systems "AI" did yesterday: nothing more capable, nothing new.

Two consequences follow, both our reading of the text:

• Every statute stays as written. Section 3(a) applies "for purposes of this order". Laws, appropriations and agency rules that say "artificial intelligence" are untouched. An order cannot amend a statute; that is why Section 3(b) asks for legislative language and "conforming amendments".
• The word does not certify capability. A federal document that calls a system "SI" is not claiming it is superhuman. Readers who know the research sense of the word (see what superintelligence is and how AI, AGI, SI and ASI differ) should read the federal "SI" as a label, not a finding.

The November 28 deadline: who writes the SI definition#

Section 3(b) gives the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST) 60 days from 2026-09-29, which is 2026-11-28, to submit "proposed legislative language to establish a Federal definition" to the President. Freshfields names the APST as Michael Kratsios. The proposal must include:

1. An assessment of whether the SI definition should "modify, expand upon, or otherwise supersede" the statutory AI definition.
2. Proposed conforming amendments to existing statutory references to "artificial intelligence" and "AI".
3. Recommendations for further Presidential or executive action to apply the definition across the executive branch.

The proposal goes to the President, not to the Federal Register. Nothing in the order says it will be published, so 2026-11-28 may pass without public text. The law changes only if Congress passes a bill, and Section 3(a) keeps the old definition in force until then.

White House Accord on Super Intelligence: the separate industry pledge#

On the same day, executives of six companies signed a voluntary accord with the President. It is a separate document from the order.

• Who signed. Defense One reports Sundar Pichai (Google), Dario Amodei (Anthropic), Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Greg Brockman (OpenAI), Elon Musk (xAI) and Jensen Huang (Nvidia). We could not confirm the list against an official text.
• What it commits to. Crowell & Moring describes four layers: internal controls to monitor models in training and deployment (including cyber, bio and chemical risks), an internal team to run them, an independent external auditor, and an independent board committee overseeing both. Crowell calls it a "single-page" document.
• Legal force. None. Freshfields says it creates no licensing, preclearance or mandatory disclosure duties and does not require signatories to adopt the new name.

We searched whitehouse.gov for the accord on 2026-11-05 and found only the order and its fact sheet; Crowell's alert links to a White House post on X rather than a document. Treat any quoted accord wording as second-hand until the text is published.

What EO 14434 means for businesses and federal contractors#

Our take: do not rename your products, and do not rewrite active contracts. Do three small things.

1. Map the terms in new federal bids. Solicitations, forms and correspondence will increasingly say "SI". Where your proposal or terms define "artificial intelligence", add a line that "SI" and "Super Intelligence" as used by the agency carry the 15 U.S.C. 9401(3) meaning. Crowell gives the same practical advice on document updates.
2. Leave existing contracts alone. Section 2(b) expressly does not require altering contracts or grants, and the order binds no private party.
3. Calendar 2026-11-28. The definition proposal is what could shift scope for future incentives, export controls or compliance rules, as Freshfields notes. Re-check your AI governance definitions when its content becomes public.

For frontier developers, the accord matters more than the order: its audit and board-oversight pledges overlap with the governance approaches compared in our guide to superintelligence frameworks. Crowell also flags antitrust exposure in the accord's pledge to meet regularly to set standards.

Beyond Washington: China, Finland and California#

The rename did not start with the order. A White House fact sheet dated 2026-09-25, four days earlier, says that during a state visit "the two leaders agreed to use the term 'super intelligence' rather than 'artificial intelligence'" and set up a U.S.-China Super Intelligence (SI) Dialogue, with the next exchange "by November 2026."

Allies are adapting in footnotes. The U.S.-Finland technology memorandum signed 2026-10-29 uses "super intelligence (SI) stack" in its text and adds: "In Finland, 'super intelligence' refers to 'artificial intelligence'."

California went the other way, according to the policy tracker Digital Policy Alert: it reports that Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-10-26 on 2026-09-30, keeping "Artificial Intelligence" and "AI" in state agencies. We could not open the order's text on gov.ca.gov, so we cannot confirm its wording or scope.

Open questions the order leaves unanswered#

• What "will not acknowledge" means. Section 1 says the executive branch will not acknowledge "AI" usage "in any applicable setting". The operative Section 2 only governs what agencies write. Whether an agency may disregard a filing or comment that says "AI" is not addressed; we read Section 4(c) and the "maximum extent permitted by law" qualifier as limiting it, but no agency guidance has appeared.
• Scope of the new definition. Rename, narrow or expand: Section 3(b)(i) leaves all three open.
• The accord's actual text and whether companies beyond the six will join.
• Follow-on bodies. Crowell reports a "Super Intelligence Force", announced on 2026-10-04, due to report within 120 days. We did not find an official document for it.

What to watch next#

• 2026-11-28: the APST's proposed legislative definition is due to the President.
• November 2026: the next U.S.-China SI Dialogue exchange, per the 2026-09-25 fact sheet.
• A bill in Congress that would write the proposed definition into 15 U.S.C. 9401(3). Until one passes, the old definition governs.