The Executive Branch Renamed AI. Your Judge Didn't.

Here’s the definition section of the order that renamed artificial intelligence:

“For purposes of this order, and except where otherwise provided by law, the terms “Super Intelligence” and “SI” mean the technologies and systems encompassed by the term “artificial intelligence” as defined in section 9401(3) of title 15, United States Code.”

So Super Intelligence is artificial intelligence. Same statute, new sticker.

The President signed it on September 29. It’s Executive Order 14434, Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence, and it went on public inspection at the Federal Register on October 1, set to print October 2. The title’s easy to laugh at. Read the rest anyway. Federal agency letters with “SI” in them are coming, and somebody’s going to ask you whether that changes anything.

Legally, almost nothing. Practically, four things, and two of them can bite you.

What the order says, in its own words

Section 2(a) is the working part. Agencies are to say “Super Intelligence” and “SI” in “official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports, policy documents, and other non-statutory documents within the executive branch.”

Section 2(b) leaves the past alone: “Nothing in this section requires the alteration of previously issued regulations, Presidential actions, contracts, grants, or other historical documents.”

Section 1 is where the headlines came from. The policy is that the executive branch uses the new terms and “will not acknowledge the usage of “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI” in any applicable setting.” That sounds like an agency could refuse to read your letter. Look at the front half of the same sentence, though. It all happens “to the maximum extent permitted by law,” and only in an “applicable” setting, which the order never defines.

Section 3(a) borrows the definition you just read. Its next sentence says that definition governs “unless and until superseded by subsequent Presidential action consistent with applicable law or by an Act of Congress.”

Section 3(b) gives the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology 60 days to send the President “proposed legislative language to establish a Federal definition of “Super Intelligence” and “SI” that reflects the capabilities described in section 1 of this order.”

And Section 4(c) closes the door you’d expect it to close. The order doesn’t “create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.”

That’s the whole thing. A vocabulary rule for federal agencies, a definition borrowed from a statute, a homework assignment due in 60 days, and a clause saying it creates no rights anyone can enforce.

It binds agencies. That’s the list.

An executive order is the President telling the executive branch how to do its job. Every directive in this one runs to “executive departments and agencies” or to the President’s own science adviser. It doesn’t reach the courts, Congress, the states, or you.

It couldn’t if it tried. The steel seizure case is still the line:

“In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad.”

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 587 (1952). Read that second sentence and then reread Section 3(b). A request for “proposed legislative language” is the President getting ready to recommend a law. Until Congress passes one, 15 U.S.C. § 9401(3) says what it says.

Can anybody turn the order into a sword? I don’t see how. The D.C. Circuit looked at a cost-benefit executive order with a no-rights clause and held it “is not subject to judicial review.” The petitioner there said it wasn’t enforcing the order, just using it as evidence that the agency acted arbitrarily. The court called that “nothing more than an indirect—and impermissible—attempt to enforce private rights under the order.” Air Transp. Ass’n of Am. v. FAA, 169 F.3d 1, 8–9 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

The clause in that case said one thing EO 14434’s doesn’t: that the order was “intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch” and created no enforceable rights. EO 14434 has the no-rights half. It doesn’t have the internal-management half. I don’t think that changes the answer, since the whole order is about how agencies write, but that’s my reading. The D.C. Circuit hasn’t seen this one.

So nobody can make you say SI, and you can’t move to strike the government’s brief for saying it.

California answered the next day. On September 30 Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-10-26. The governor’s office announced it as an order “to actually define artificial intelligence.” Here’s the operative paragraph, in full:

“All agencies and departments subject to my authority shall refer to Artificial Intelligence and AI as “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI,” notwithstanding any rebranded or different terminology used by the federal government, unless inconsistent with the law.”

AI means AI. It binds the governor’s own agencies and nobody else, and it carries its own no-rights paragraph.

Two executives, two vocabularies, zero effect on your docket.

Federal court: there’s no AI word to collide with

Start at home. The District of Minnesota’s Generative AI FAQ, dated October 1, 2025, says it flat out: “The District of Minnesota does not currently require disclosure of AI use in court filings.” It sends you to Rules 11 and 26(g) and tells you you’re “ultimately responsible for the accuracy and sufficiency of the resulting work product” when you use these tools.

Now go looking for the word. The court’s Local Rules, dated June 10, 2026, don’t have it. The court posts 22 sets of judges’ practice pointers. Not one uses the words “artificial intelligence” or “generative”. Neither do the Eighth Circuit’s local rules or its internal operating procedures. Rule 11 doesn’t mention the software either. It asks for “an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” and that inquiry doesn’t get easier or harder because of what the executive branch calls the tool you used.

So in this district the rule that governs is Rule 11, and Rule 11 doesn’t care what the software is called.

If you’re filing somewhere that does have an AI disclosure order, the D. Minn. FAQ warns you about it: “Litigants should be aware, however, of AI-use disclosure requirements in other jurisdictions.” Certify in that order’s words. A judge who ordered you to disclose “AI” use won’t be charmed by a certificate swearing you used no artificial intelligence, just a little Super Intelligence. Don’t get cute.

The more interesting move came from the judiciary’s own rulemakers. Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 went out for comment in August 2025 aimed at “machine-generated” evidence. After the comments came in, the Evidence Rules Committee rewrote it. The committee’s May 17, 2026 report says the new draft “focuses on “artificial intelligence” rather than “machine-generated” information.” Here’s the definition it chose:

“In this rule, “artificial intelligence” means a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations or decisions influencing real or virtual environments.“

Everything after “means” is the first sentence of § 9401(3), word for word. Same year, two branches, same statutory definition. The executive branch calls it SI. The judiciary’s draft calls it AI.

The committee didn’t republish the redraft. It wanted technology experts to vet it before deciding whether to go forward, and its agenda for October 15, 2026 has a panel on AI evidence and Rule 707. Watch that meeting. That’s the federal rule that may actually use the word, and right now the word is “artificial intelligence”.

Minnesota already writes around the word

The Minnesota General Rules of Practice, the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Rules of Professional Conduct don’t say “artificial intelligence” at all. None of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board’s opinions addresses it. The closest thing Minnesota has to ethics guidance is a September 2024 Bench & Bar column by the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, walking through ABA Formal Opinion 512. She didn’t dance around it: “Because Minnesota generally follows the model rules of relevance on this topic, Opinion 512 is particularly instructive for Minnesota lawyers.” Her term, and the ABA’s, is generative AI.

The Judicial Branch’s own AI page for the public lands in the same spot the federal court did: “Minnesota court rules do not currently require disclosure of AI use in court filings. However, it may be a requirement in your individual case if ordered by a judicial officer.” Same answer in both courthouses. If a judge orders disclosure in your case, that order’s words are the ones that count.

Now look at the Minnesota statutes aimed squarely at this technology. They don’t say it either.

• The deepfake statutes. Sections 609.771 and 604.32, both from 2023, define a deep fake partly by whether its production “was substantially dependent upon technical means, rather than the ability of another individual to physically or verbally impersonate such individual.” No mention of AI.
• The 2026 nudification law. When Judge Frank denied xAI’s motion to block it on September 4, he described it as a law prohibiting companies “that own specific artificial intelligence (“AI”) technology products” from letting users generate certain images. The statute itself never uses the phrase. It reaches a “website, application, software, program, or other service” that lets a user nudify an image or video, unless the service “requires the technical skill of a user” to do it, and it defines “nudify” by the result, not the tool. 2026 Minn. Laws ch. 72, § 1 (to be codified at Minn. Stat. § 325E.91).
• The 2026 utilization-review amendment. For health plans offered, sold, issued, or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, a utilization review organization can’t make an adverse determination “using any form of automated processing alone” without clinician review. 2026 Minn. Laws ch. 124, art. 3, § 6 (amending Minn. Stat. § 62M.09, subd. 3).

Minnesota’s drafters already define the thing by what it does. None of these statutes moves an inch because of a federal executive order, and a Minnesota court doesn’t take its vocabulary from the White House.

That’s also the best drafting advice in this whole essay, and the Legislature gave it to you for free.

What actually changes for you

Agency paper will say SI. The law it cites won’t.

Expect “SI” in agency letters, reports, guidance, and websites. Section 2(b) leaves existing regulations and contracts alone, so you’ll see SI in the sentence and AI in the citation.

The White House is already doing it. Its fact sheet on the order says “In July 2025, the White House released America’s AI Action Plan” and, in the same sentence, says the plan’s actions are meant “to win the SI race by accelerating SI innovation, building American SI infrastructure, and extending U.S. SI leadership around the world.” That’s the AI Action Plan, described in SI four times. It also calls the March 2026 legislative recommendations a “National Super Intelligence Policy Framework” when the document itself is titled for artificial intelligence and never says “super intelligence” once.

Will DOJ start writing SI in briefs? The order’s list ends with a catch-all for “other non-statutory documents within the executive branch” and a brief gets filed in a court. The order never mentions court filings. If a government brief shows up saying SI, don’t fight about it. Cite the statute.

Fix your search terms

As of October 1, the Federal Register’s search turns up no published document using the phrase “super intelligence” anywhere. Four documents published on September 30 and October 1, from the FCC, Commerce, Transportation, and the FTC, use the phrase “artificial intelligence” in their text. The order itself prints October 2. Expect a stretch where agencies use both.

So if you’re running ESI searches or drafting a FOIA request aimed at federal records created after September 29, “artificial intelligence” and “AI” won’t catch everything anymore. Add Super Intelligence, superintelligence, and SI. Don’t run SI by itself. Two capital letters will drown you in false hits. Tie it to a proximity connector or a second term.

Going the other way, when you describe a record in a FOIA request, use the name on the document, not the name the government uses for it today. The March framework is the example. Ask for the “National Super Intelligence Policy Framework” and you’re describing a title that doesn’t exist.

Same logic for your own litigation holds. If a hold reaches AI-workflow records, the trail I wrote about in The Discovery of Your Prompts, don’t let its description hang on a single word.

Check what your definitions point at

The order doesn’t touch your contracts. It isn’t addressed to you, and Section 2(b) doesn’t even make agencies rewrite their own.

The risk is a definition that borrows the federal one. If your vendor agreement, protective order, or discovery definitions define AI “as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 9401(3),” know what you borrowed. Section 9401 opens with “In this chapter:” — it was written for one chapter of Title 15. And Section 3(b)(i) of the order asks whether the new definition should “modify, expand upon, or otherwise supersede” the statutory one. If Congress ever acts on that, a cross-reference that tracks the statute as amended moves with it.

Decide now whether you want that. Three fixes, pick what fits:

• Define it by what it does, the way Minnesota’s deepfake and nudification statutes do.
• Add “however named”, and spell out “Super Intelligence” and “SI” so nobody argues the label changed the scope.
• If you keep the § 9401(3) cross-reference, freeze it or float it on purpose. Say “as in effect on the date of this agreement” or “as amended.” Don’t leave it to the other side to argue about later.

If your client contracts with the federal government, read new solicitations and grant terms for both words. Section 2(b) protects what’s already signed. It says nothing about what’s drafted next.

Watch November 28

Sixty days from September 29 lands on November 28, 2026, a Saturday. That’s when the proposed definition is due, and it goes to the President, not to you. It’s a proposal.

But it’s where real change could come from. Section 3(b)(i) asks whether the new definition should replace the statutory one. Section 3(b)(ii) asks for “any proposed conforming amendments, as appropriate, to existing statutory references to “artificial intelligence” and “AI”” across the code. If Congress passes a Super Intelligence definition that covers more, or less, than § 9401(3) does, every statute and contract that borrows the federal definition changes scope with it. The rename is a press release. A new definition would be law.

The strongest case against me

Names drive money. Program offices, budget lines, grant announcements, and procurement categories all carry names, and once “AI” disappears from agency vocabulary, a submission written the old way could get routed wrong or read as out of step. And “will not acknowledge” is a strange thing to put in an order if nobody means it.

I’ll give that its due. If you’re writing to a federal agency for a client who needs something from it, using both terms costs you nothing and might help. But the statute the agency administers still says artificial intelligence, and so do the regulations Section 2(b) leaves alone. I don’t see an agency bouncing a request over the word its own statute uses. If one does, see below.

Here’s how I’d know I blew this one

• An agency bounces a filing, comment, or FOIA request because the word AI is in it. Then “will not acknowledge” has teeth, and you’ll need to write SI to the federal government.
• A federal court adopts SI in a local rule, a standing order, a form, or the next draft of Rule 707.
• Congress passes a definition that changes what’s covered, not just what it’s called.
• Minnesota picks up the federal term in a statute or a court rule.

Until one of those happens, the President renamed the technology. He didn’t rename your Rule 11 certification.

Sources

• The White House, Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence (Sept. 29, 2026), Exec. Order No. 14434, FR Doc. 2026-20321, public inspection copy (filed Oct. 1, 2026; scheduled publication Oct. 2, 2026) — §§ 1 (policy; “will not acknowledge”), 2(a) (documents covered), 2(b) (no alteration of existing regulations, contracts, grants), 3(a) (definition by reference to 15 U.S.C. § 9401(3)), 3(b) (60-day proposed legislative language; (i) supersede assessment; (ii) conforming amendments), 4(c) (no enforceable rights)
• The White House, Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Inaugurates The Era of Super Intelligence (Sept. 29, 2026) — the “America’s AI Action Plan” and “National Super Intelligence Policy Framework” sentences
• The White House, National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence: Legislative Recommendations (Mar. 2026) — the document’s own title; no use of “super intelligence”
• 15 U.S.C. § 9401 (2024 ed., GovInfo; cross-checked at Cornell LII) — “In this chapter:” lead-in; paragraph (3) (definition of “artificial intelligence”)
• Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 587 (1952) — the President is not a lawmaker; his lawmaking role is recommending and vetoing
• Air Transp. Ass’n of Am. v. FAA, 169 F.3d 1, 8–9 (D.C. Cir. 1999) — executive order with a no-rights clause not subject to judicial review; indirect enforcement impermissible
• Office of the Governor of California, Executive Order N-10-26 (Sept. 30, 2026) — operative paragraph and no-rights paragraph; press release (Sept. 30, 2026) — “to actually define artificial intelligence”
• U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, GenAI FAQ (Oct. 1, 2025) — no disclosure requirement; Rules 11 and 26(g) responsibility; other jurisdictions’ disclosure requirements; Local Rules (June 10, 2026) and Judges’ Practice Pointers (22 posted sets) — no use of “artificial intelligence” or “generative”
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Local Rules (June 2024) and Internal Operating Procedures — no AI provision
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 — Rule 11(b) (“an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances”)
• Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, Report to the Standing Committee (May 17, 2026) — publication history of proposed Rule 707; redraft focusing on “artificial intelligence”; redraft text including Rule 707(e) definition; decision to have experts vet the redraft before republication; Agenda Book (Oct. 15, 2026) — expert panel on AI evidence and Rule 707
• Minn. Stat. § 609.771, subd. 1(c), and Minn. Stat. § 604.32, subd. 1(b) — “deep fake” definitions (“substantially dependent upon technical means”)
• 2026 Minn. Laws ch. 72, § 1 (to be codified at Minn. Stat. § 325E.91), subds. 1(d), 2(a), 3 — nudification prohibition and technical-skill exemption; no use of “artificial intelligence”; X.AI LLC v. Ellison, No. 26-3425 (DWF/DTS), Doc. 54 at 1 (D. Minn. Sept. 4, 2026) (memorandum opinion and order denying preliminary injunction), appeal docketed, No. 26-2806 (8th Cir. Sept. 9, 2026)
• 2026 Minn. Laws ch. 124, art. 3, § 6 (amending Minn. Stat. § 62M.09, subd. 3, to add paragraph (f), effective Jan. 1, 2027) — “any form of automated processing alone”
• Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, General Rules of Practice for the District Courts, and Rules of Civil Procedure, as posted by the Revisor of Statutes; Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, Board Opinions — no rule or Board opinion addressing artificial intelligence
• Susan M. Humiston, Ethics guidance for generative AI use, Bench & Bar of Minnesota (Sept. 2024) — column by the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility summarizing ABA Formal Opinion 512; “particularly instructive for Minnesota lawyers”
• Minnesota Judicial Branch, Artificial Intelligence Information: Frequently Asked Questions (viewed Oct. 1, 2026) — no court rule requires disclosure of AI use in filings; a judicial officer may order it in an individual case
• Federal Register document search, phrase “super intelligence” (no published documents through Oct. 1, 2026) and phrase “artificial intelligence”, published Sept. 30–Oct. 1, 2026 (91 FR 61847; 91 FR 61835; 91 FR 61988; 91 FR 62347)
• Companion essay in this section: The Discovery of Your Prompts (May 11, 2026)

Commentary on federal and Minnesota law and the business of law, current as of October 1, 2026. Not legal advice, and not a substitute for reading the order, rule, or statute that governs your matter. The predictions and stated falsifiers are the author’s. No client information appears in this article.