A reported new executive order from US President Donald Trump would require the US executive branch to stop using the term artificial intelligence in official policy websites, documents and press releases, replacing it with Super Intelligence. Based on the source report, this appears to be a change in official terminology rather than a technical or legal redefinition of AI systems.

For European businesses, the immediate operational impact looks limited. However, the change may still matter for companies that sell AI-related products or services into the US market, follow US public-sector technology policy, or rely on consistent terminology across compliance, procurement and marketing materials.

What happened

According to The Verge, the Trump administration has issued an executive order directing US executive branch communications to refer to AI as Super Intelligence. The report describes the change as applying to official government policy websites, policy documents and press releases.

Based on the information available in the source, there is no indication that the order itself changes the technical scope of AI systems, creates a new regulatory category, or introduces new compliance obligations for private companies simply by renaming the term.

That distinction matters. A terminology change in government communications is not the same as a new law, a binding technical standard, or a revised regulatory framework.

Why it matters for European businesses

Even if the practical effect is mostly communicative, language used by major governments can influence procurement, policy interpretation and public-sector messaging. For European companies operating internationally, especially in software, consulting, digital services and AI adoption, terminology changes can create confusion in several areas.

• Cross-border contracts and procurement: Businesses bidding for US-related public-sector or partner-led projects may need to watch for updated wording in tender documents, frameworks or communications.
• Policy monitoring: Teams tracking US AI developments may need to recognise that future federal materials could use different terminology while referring to broadly similar technologies.
• Internal governance and documentation: Companies with international compliance, legal or product teams may need to map US terminology back to existing EU definitions and risk frameworks.
• Marketing and communications: Agencies and vendors serving both US and European markets may face questions about whether the new term implies a different product category or capability. Based on the source, businesses should not assume that it does.

For EU companies, the main reference point for compliance remains European law and guidance, including the EU AI Act where applicable. A US communications change does not alter EU legal definitions or obligations.

Who may be affected

• SMEs selling AI tools or services in the US: Especially those responding to public-sector opportunities or US enterprise procurement processes.
• Digital agencies and consultancies: Firms preparing client-facing materials, strategy documents or AI adoption plans across multiple jurisdictions.
• IT and product teams: Teams responsible for product documentation, governance, vendor management and technical policy alignment.
• Founders and business leaders: Decision-makers who rely on US policy developments as a signal for investment or market positioning.

What companies should consider

• Do not treat a terminology shift as a legal reclassification: Unless further binding measures are published, companies should avoid assuming that established AI compliance categories have changed.
• Monitor official US documents carefully: If your business works with US agencies, contractors or multinational clients, check whether procurement or policy documents adopt the new wording.
• Keep EU compliance language consistent: For European operations, maintain terminology aligned with applicable EU laws, contracts and internal governance frameworks.
• Prepare internal guidance: Commercial, legal and technical teams may benefit from a short note explaining that Super Intelligence, in this reported context, appears to be a communications term rather than a confirmed new technical standard.
• Avoid overstating product claims: Vendors should be careful not to use changed political branding as evidence of new capabilities, performance or regulatory approval.

At this stage, the development looks more relevant as a policy communications signal than as a direct operational rule change. European businesses should watch for follow-up actions that could affect procurement language, intergovernmental cooperation, or future US AI policy documents, but should not confuse reported terminology changes with new binding requirements.