California Governor Gavin Newsom has directed state agencies to continue using the terms “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI”, shortly after US President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to adopt “Super Intelligence” and “SI” instead.
Newsom announced the move on September 30, 2026, using the decision to poke fun at the federal terminology change while also highlighting California’s broader approach to artificial intelligence policy.
Under the executive order, California agencies and departments under the governor’s authority are to refer to the technology as “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI”, regardless of different terminology adopted by the federal government, except where otherwise required by law.
California rejects the federal terminology
Newsom announced the order in a social media post, joking that California had “permanently” decided to keep calling the technology Artificial Intelligence.
The move followed Trump’s September 29 executive order directing federal executive departments and agencies to replace “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI” with “Super Intelligence” and “SI” in official communications, websites, reports, policy documents and other non-statutory materials.
Trump’s order said the new terminology was intended to reflect what his administration described as the increasingly advanced capabilities of modern AI systems.
The order also directs the White House science and technology office to develop proposed legislation that could establish a federal definition of “Super Intelligence” and determine whether existing statutory references to artificial intelligence should be changed.
Newsom turns the terminology change into a political jab
Newsom’s response was not simply about terminology.
In announcing his order, the California governor linked the naming issue to his administration’s wider focus on AI safety, oversight and consumer protection.
California has recently expanded its AI policy framework, including measures covering independent oversight, workplace use, privacy, deepfakes and safety requirements for advanced AI systems.
Newsom has also argued that governments should pay attention to the risks associated with increasingly powerful AI systems rather than focusing only on technological development.
.
advertisement
The governor’s latest order therefore creates a clear terminology difference between California’s state government and the US federal executive branch.
What Trump’s order changes
Trump’s September 29 executive order does not rename the technology for everyone in the United States.
Instead, it directs the federal executive branch to use “Super Intelligence” and “SI” in specified official communications and other non-statutory materials. The order retains existing statutory references and says previously issued regulations, presidential actions, contracts, grants and historical documents do not have to be rewritten.
The order defines “Super Intelligence” for its implementation purposes using the existing federal statutory definition of artificial intelligence, unless otherwise provided by law. It also calls for proposed legislative language within 60 days to establish a federal definition.
California’s wider AI policy
The terminology dispute comes as California continues to develop rules around the use and safety of AI.
On September 30, Newsom also announced new measures addressing AI’s impact on workers and consumers. Among other provisions, California said employers will face restrictions on relying solely on AI for certain disciplinary or termination decisions, while workers will receive more transparency when AI contributes to major employment decisions.
Newsom had also issued an earlier September executive order aimed at accelerating independent oversight of advanced AI companies and exploring the development of an emergency “kill switch” for frontier AI models.
The result is an unusual split: federal agencies have been instructed to use “Super Intelligence” and “SI”, while California agencies under Newsom’s authority have been ordered to continue using the familiar terms “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI.”
For the public and private sector, the technology itself has not been technically transformed by the terminology change; the difference primarily concerns how the two governments refer to it in their official communications.