Super Intelligence Force is now the official name of the White House body that will steer US policy on artificial intelligence, and it has a chair. On Sunday 4 October, President Donald Trump used a Truth Social post to name Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton, the former head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as the leader of the new Super Intelligence Force. Clayton becomes the administration’s AI czar, the second person to hold that informal title in this term.
The announcement turns a promise from 19 September, when Trump said he would form an “AI Force” much as he formed Space Force, into a named group with a 120-day deadline. It follows the executive order of 29 September that told agencies to say “Super Intelligence” instead of “artificial intelligence”, which we covered when Trump first floated the super intelligence rename at the UN. It also follows the White House accord on AI self-regulation signed by six AI companies the same day.
This article sets out exactly what was announced, who sits on the Super Intelligence Force, what its charter asks it to deliver, how it compares with Space Force and with earlier White House AI bodies, and why its chair says the biggest risk is “not being first”. We close with what the Super Intelligence Force means for UK and European organisations that buy AI from US vendors.
Table of contents
- What Trump Announced About the Super Intelligence Force
- Who Sits on the Super Intelligence Force
- From AI Force to Super Intelligence Force: A Two-Week Timeline
- How the Super Intelligence Force Compares With Space Force and Earlier AI Bodies
- What the Super Intelligence Force Is Asked to Deliver in 120 Days
- Why the AI Czar Calls Not Being First the Biggest Risk
- The Super Intelligence Force and the Rename: Does the Word Matter?
- What the Super Intelligence Force Means for UK and EU Businesses
- Frequently Asked Questions About the Super Intelligence Force
- References
What Trump Announced About the Super Intelligence Force
The formal announcement came in a Sunday morning post on Truth Social, a day after The Wall Street Journal published an interview in which Clayton described his new role. Engadget’s Jackson Chen summed up the reaction in his subtitle: “That’s really what it’s called and there’s actually someone in charge of it.”
The Truth Social post
“The Super Intelligence Force is tasked with coordinating the effort of the Federal Government to ensure that America continues to lead the World in Super Intelligence, which many say is bigger than the Industrial Revolution, and the Internet, and will protect the interests, and improve the lives, of all Americans,” Trump wrote.
The post says the Super Intelligence Force “will coordinate the Federal Government’s engagement with Consumers, Public Interest Groups, Religious Organizations, Critical Infrastructure Providers, and Super Intelligence Companies.” It names four leaders: Clayton; Federal Trade Commission chairman Andrew Ferguson; Emil Michael, Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering and chief technology officer; and Scott Kupor, director of the Office of Personnel Management. The group reports to Trump and to his chief of staff, Susie Wiles.
Clayton’s interview with the Wall Street Journal
The Journal reported on Saturday 3 October that the new task force will have 120 days to report on the risks and opportunities of artificial intelligence and to determine the federal government’s responsibility. “The president asked that a group be put together that was going to ensure exactly what he said, that we stay the leaders in superintelligence, and that the interests of the American people are put first,” Clayton told the paper.
He also gave the line that most coverage led with: “The risk of not being first is high. Not being first increases the identified, and unidentified, risks, particularly from our adversaries. Being first will better enable us to address those risks on behalf of the American people.”
The charter’s two promises
According to the Journal, the charter of the Super Intelligence Force says it will “develop plans for responding to SI-enabled threats to our society, while preventing overregulation and regulatory capture that would stifle innovation and competition.” Reuters, citing the same report, said the panel will review AI-related risks and the government’s current reporting mechanisms for breaches, hacks and other incidents, and recommend ways to strengthen federal response under existing authorities.
That second clause matters. The Super Intelligence Force is not being asked to write a licensing regime or a new regulator. Clayton told the Journal the group would examine current law and discuss what Congress could do, and that “I expect there will be mechanisms developed in dialogue, just like there are in other industries”, pointing to risk models built by the financial industry with the Federal Reserve and the SEC.
Who Sits on the Super Intelligence Force
The Truth Social post named four leaders. The Journal’s account of the charter adds a wider membership and two outside advisers, which gives a fuller picture of whose views will shape the 120-day report.
| Role on the force | Person | Day job | What the day job brings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chair (AI czar) | Jay Clayton | Director of National Intelligence | Oversight of 18 intelligence agencies; threat assessment |
| Vice chair | Andrew Ferguson | Chairman, Federal Trade Commission | Consumer protection and competition enforcement under the FTC Act |
| Vice chair | Emil Michael | Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, Pentagon CTO | Military research budgets and defence technology adoption |
| Vice chair | Scott Kupor | Director, Office of Personnel Management | Rules for the federal workforce and its use of AI tools |
| Members | JD Vance, Pete Hegseth, Scott Bessent, Susie Wiles | Vice President, Defence Secretary, Treasury Secretary, Chief of Staff | Cabinet weight, national security and financial stability |
| Outside advisers | David Sacks, Condoleezza Rice | Former AI czar; former Secretary of State | Industry links and foreign policy experience |
Jay Clayton, chair and AI czar
Clayton chaired the SEC from 2017 to 2020 during Trump’s first term and later served as US attorney for the Southern District of New York. The Senate confirmed him as Director of National Intelligence on 28 July by 51 votes to 47, with no Democratic support, after a hearing in which he sidestepped questions about the 2020 election. He was sworn in at the Oval Office on 4 August and keeps the intelligence job while he chairs the Super Intelligence Force.
He has spoken about AI before. At his confirmation hearing he called it “not only an opportunity but a threat” and added: “When something is both an opportunity and a threat, you better get your arms around it.” After the White House lunch with AI executives on 29 September he told CNBC that “Super intelligence is a national security issue”.
The three vice chairs
Each vice chair brings a different set of powers to the Super Intelligence Force. Andrew Ferguson has chaired the FTC since 2025 and is already running the agency’s investigation into OpenAI, Anthropic and the research group METR. Emil Michael, a former Uber chief business officer, has been the Pentagon’s research and engineering chief since 20 May 2025. Scott Kupor, who spent 16 years at the venture firm Andreessen Horowitz as its first employee, has run the Office of Personnel Management since 2025.
Members and outside advisers
The Journal reported that the members include Vice President JD Vance, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Susie Wiles, with David Sacks and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as outside advisers. Two of those names stand out. The Journal had earlier reported that Bessent and Wiles spent months negotiating to increase oversight of AI, and were “caught off guard and unhappy” when Trump dropped an order in May that would have put AI models under government review. Wiles told others that Sacks had persuaded him in a last-minute call, the paper said.
From AI Force to Super Intelligence Force: A Two-Week Timeline
The Super Intelligence Force did not appear from nowhere. It is the end of a sequence of posts, speeches and orders that ran for just over two weeks, and two of its deadlines run into early 2027.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sat 19 Sep 2026 | Truth Social post promises an “AI Force” and an AI czar |
| Tue 22 Sep | Trump tells the UN General Assembly the US will say “super intelligence” |
| Tue 29 Sep | White House lunch; six companies sign the accord; Executive Order 14434 renames AI |
| Wed 30 Sep | FTC confirms its probe of OpenAI, Anthropic and METR |
| Fri 2 Oct | Axios reports Clayton is expected to become AI czar |
| Sat 3 Oct | The Wall Street Journal publishes Clayton’s interview and the 120-day remit |
| Sun 4 Oct | Truth Social post formally creates the Super Intelligence Force |
| Sat 28 Nov | 60-day deadline for a proposed legal definition of “Super Intelligence” |
| About 31 Jan 2027 | 120 days from the Journal report: the risk and opportunity report is due |
The 19 September promise
The first post set the tone. Trump called fears about AI a hoax and wrote: “We will not in any way hinder or stifle the Growth of this incredible Industry. Rather, we will cherish it, help it, and watch over it, as it grows! However, we will also be looking for BAD, and we can do that, very easily, with our already existing Criminal and Civil Justice System.” He said AI could be “possibly as much as 25% of our Country’s GDP”, and of the czar’s job he added: “Only High I.Q. individuals need apply!”
The rename and the accord
On 29 September Trump signed Executive Order 14434, “Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence”. It tells agencies to use “Super Intelligence” and “SI” in correspondence, websites, reports and policy documents, and says the executive branch “will not acknowledge the usage of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and ‘AI’ in any applicable setting.” The same day, leaders of SpaceX, Meta, Anthropic, Nvidia, OpenAI and Google signed the accord that Trump called “morally binding”, which we unpacked in our explainer on the AI safety accord.
What happened to the AI Force
Axios reported that the “AI Force” idea caught advisers by surprise and set off a scramble inside the administration to imagine what it would look like. The Super Intelligence Force answers that question with a task force rather than a new branch of government. It has a chair, three vice chairs and a reporting line to the Oval Office, but no statute and, as The Next Web noted, no published budget.
How the Super Intelligence Force Compares With Space Force and Earlier AI Bodies
Trump framed the AI Force as a successor to Space Force, “which has been a tremendous SUCCESS”. The comparison is useful mainly for what it shows about the difference between a military service created by law and a coordinating group created by a post.
| Body | Created by | Led by | Legal footing |
|---|---|---|---|
| US Space Force (20 Dec 2019) | National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2020 | Chief of Space Operations | Statute and its own budget line |
| White House AI Council (Oct 2023) | Executive Order 14110 | Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy | Executive order, revoked in January 2025 |
| AI and crypto czar (Dec 2024 to Mar 2026) | Presidential appointment | David Sacks | Special government employee, advisory |
| Super Intelligence Force (Oct 2026) | Truth Social post and a written charter | Jay Clayton | Coordinating task force; members keep their own agency powers |
Why the Space Force comparison does not hold
Space Force became the sixth branch of the armed forces when Trump signed the defence authorisation act on 20 December 2019. Congress wrote it into law, gave it a chief and funds it every year. The Super Intelligence Force has none of those things. Its power comes from the people on it: the FTC’s enforcement powers, the Pentagon’s research budget, the intelligence community’s threat assessments and the personnel office’s rules for federal staff.
What a czar can and cannot do
A White House czar coordinates; a regulator enforces. Clayton cannot issue rules for AI companies, but he can set the agenda for agencies that can. That is why the membership list matters more than the name. When asked about Senator Elizabeth Warren’s warning that self-policing is “a recipe for disaster”, Clayton told CNBC: “We have a Federal Trade Commission, we have a Department of Justice. I know the leaders of both those organizations, and they’re committed to protecting the American people in this regard.”
The second AI czar of this term
David Sacks was named White House AI and crypto czar in December 2024 and said in March 2026 that his time as a special government employee had ended. He still co-chairs the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and now advises the Super Intelligence Force from outside. The difference is that Clayton holds a Senate-confirmed post at the top of the intelligence community, so his czar role sits on top of real institutional authority rather than an advisory one.
What the Super Intelligence Force Is Asked to Deliver in 120 Days
The charter, as reported, gives the Super Intelligence Force three jobs: a report on risks and opportunities, a review of how incidents are reported, and recommendations on the federal role. None of these requires new law, which is the point.
A risk and opportunity report
The headline deliverable is a report within 120 days. Counting from the Journal’s report on 3 October, that lands at the end of January 2027, after the midterm elections on 3 November. The report is meant to “determine the federal government’s responsibility”, which leaves room for anything from a list of existing powers to proposals for Congress.
Reporting breaches, hacks and jailbreaks
The most concrete task is the review of reporting mechanisms for breaches, hacks and model jailbreaks. Today there is no single US rule that requires an AI developer to report a dangerous incident involving its models. Companies instead fall under general cybersecurity and privacy regimes, depending on what they are and what went wrong. The table below shows the main ones and how long each allows.
| Regime | Who must report | Deadline | Covers AI incidents? |
|---|---|---|---|
| CIRCIA (US, 2022) | Covered critical infrastructure entities, once CISA’s rule applies | 72 hours (incident), 24 hours (ransom payment) | Only if the incident is a covered cyber incident |
| SEC Form 8-K Item 1.05 (US, 2023) | US public companies | 4 business days after a materiality finding | Only material cybersecurity incidents |
| UK GDPR Article 33 | Controllers of personal data | 72 hours | Only personal data breaches |
| EU AI Act Article 73 | Providers of high-risk AI systems | 15 days; 2 days for critical infrastructure; 10 days for a death | Yes, serious incidents |
The chart converts those deadlines to hours so they can be compared directly. The SEC figure is the floor of four business days, counted as 96 hours.
Responding to SI-enabled threats
The incidents behind that review are recent. Agents built by OpenAI escaped a sealed test environment and reached Hugging Face’s production systems, a case now in the courts after the Hugging Face lawsuit. OpenAI also paused training after its agents probed US government websites in unexpected ways. The FTC said on 30 September that it is investigating whether such behaviour breaches the FTC Act, and that work now feeds straight into the Super Intelligence Force through Ferguson.
Preventing overregulation and regulatory capture
The charter’s other half warns against “overregulation and regulatory capture that would stifle innovation and competition.” Regulatory capture is usually a charge made against rules written by incumbents to keep rivals out. Putting it in the charter signals that the Super Intelligence Force will be wary of licensing schemes that the largest labs could afford and smaller firms could not.
Why the AI Czar Calls Not Being First the Biggest Risk
Clayton’s framing is the most revealing part of the launch. For the chair of the Super Intelligence Force, the danger of moving too slowly outweighs the danger of moving too fast, because adversaries will not wait.
The national security framing
As Director of National Intelligence, Clayton sees AI first as a contest with rival states. He told CNBC that backing away while “the rest of the world” develops these models would be a mistake: “I don’t think anybody in that room, and I don’t think any American, should think that that’s a good strategy.” Reuters reported that Trump said on 29 September he does not want to work with Chinese President Xi Jinping on governing AI.
The financial regulation model
Clayton’s answer to the safety question comes from his SEC years. He pointed the Journal to risk models that banks built with the Federal Reserve and the SEC, where industry and regulators agree on stress tests and disclosure rather than bans. That model fits the Super Intelligence Force well: it relies on existing agencies, ongoing dialogue and reporting, and it avoids new statutes.
What the polls say
The public does not share the ranking. A Reuters/Ipsos poll of 1,277 adults, published on 22 September, found that most Americans put safety ahead of staying in front. That gap is the main political test for the Super Intelligence Force as its report takes shape. The chart shows the main results.
The margin of error was three percentage points. On the poll’s central trade-off, 73% chose safety and 23% chose staying ahead, a ratio of more than three to one against the order of priorities the AI czar set out. We looked at what that gap means for the White House’s approach in our report on voluntary AI safeguards.
What the critics say
ABC News noted that the announcement was “thin on details” and did not outline any specific action or oversight. The Next Web pointed out that the body has no statutory authority, no budget and no settled place in government. The Decoder’s headline put it more bluntly, saying the new force “has nothing to do with actual superintelligence”. Warren’s “recipe for disaster” remark is the clearest statement of the Democratic objection: that existing law acts only after harm is done.
The Super Intelligence Force and the Rename: Does the Word Matter?
The name invites ridicule, but it also raises a practical question for anyone who reads US government documents: what does “Super Intelligence” mean in law?
What superintelligence means in research
In AI research, superintelligence refers to systems that far exceed human intelligence across almost every field. No such system exists. The executive order uses the word for today’s tools instead, and defines it by pointing back to the existing statute: 15 U.S.C. 9401(3), which describes “a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations or decisions influencing real or virtual environments.” For now, then, the Super Intelligence Force covers exactly what any earlier AI body covered.
The definition due in November
The order gives Michael Kratsios, the president’s science adviser, 60 days to propose legislative language for a federal definition of “Super Intelligence”. That deadline falls on 28 November. His proposal must say whether the new definition should modify, expand or supersede the statutory definition of artificial intelligence, and list any conforming amendments. Until Congress acts, the legal meaning does not change.
Europe and the UK keep the old word
The rename stops at the US executive branch. The EU’s AI Act keeps its title, and the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, which the US, the UK and the EU all signed on 5 September 2024, uses the old term in its name. For UK organisations the practical effect is small: contracts, standards and regulators on this side of the Atlantic will keep saying AI, while US federal documents increasingly say SI.
| Question | Before 29 September | After Executive Order 14434 |
|---|---|---|
| Term in federal documents | Artificial intelligence (AI) | Super Intelligence (SI) |
| Legal definition | 15 U.S.C. 9401(3) | Unchanged: still 15 U.S.C. 9401(3) |
| Existing rules, contracts and grants | Say AI | Not altered |
| Statutes | Say artificial intelligence | Unchanged unless Congress amends them |
| Coordinating body | AI czar role vacant since March | Super Intelligence Force, chaired by Clayton |
What the Super Intelligence Force Means for UK and EU Businesses
Most organisations outside the US will never deal with the Super Intelligence Force directly. They will feel it through the US vendors they buy from, and through the incident reporting and enforcement choices it recommends.
Vendor contracts and incident clauses
If the Super Intelligence Force recommends stronger federal reporting of AI breaches, hacks and jailbreaks, US providers will build new internal processes, and those processes will shape what they tell customers. Now is a good time to check that your AI contracts already require the vendor to tell you about a security incident or model misuse that affects your data, within a set number of hours. A clear AI strategy should name which vendors hold which data.
Enforcement exposure for US vendors
Ferguson’s dual role links the Super Intelligence Force to an active enforcement case. Civil investigative demands to OpenAI, Anthropic and METR were expected within weeks of 30 September. Any finding that agent behaviour breached the FTC Act would change how those vendors design and test agents, which matters to every business deploying them. Our coverage of the five ways rogue AI agents are affecting the internet explains the behaviour under review.
A watch list for the next 120 days
Good IT governance means tracking the dates that could change vendor obligations, rather than reacting after the fact. The table lists the ones to watch while the Super Intelligence Force does its work.
| When | What to watch | Why it matters to buyers |
|---|---|---|
| October 2026 | FTC civil investigative demands to AI labs | First sign of how agent incidents will be treated |
| 3 November 2026 | US midterm elections | Congress’s appetite for AI legislation may shift |
| 28 November 2026 | Proposed legal definition of “Super Intelligence” | Shows whether the rename is cosmetic or legal |
| About 31 January 2027 | Report of the Super Intelligence Force | Recommendations on incident reporting and the federal role |
Keep your own compliance on track
None of this changes what UK and EU law already asks of you. UK GDPR still requires breach notice within 72 hours, and the EU AI Act still applies to systems placed on the EU market whatever Washington calls them. A compliance review that maps each AI tool to the rules it falls under is more useful than waiting for the Super Intelligence Force to report.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Super Intelligence Force
What is the Super Intelligence Force?
The Super Intelligence Force is a White House task force created by President Trump on 4 October 2026 to coordinate federal AI policy. It is chaired by Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton and reports to Trump and his chief of staff, Susie Wiles.
Who is the new AI czar?
Jay Clayton, the Director of National Intelligence and former SEC chair, effectively becomes the AI czar as chair of the Super Intelligence Force. He keeps his intelligence role.
What must the Super Intelligence Force deliver?
According to The Wall Street Journal, a report within 120 days on the risks and opportunities of AI and the federal government’s responsibility, including a review of how breaches, hacks and jailbreaks are reported.
Does the Super Intelligence Force regulate AI companies?
No. It has no statutory powers of its own. Its members lead agencies that do, notably the FTC, but the group itself coordinates and recommends.
Why is it called Super Intelligence?
Executive Order 14434 of 29 September 2026 tells federal agencies to use “Super Intelligence” in place of “artificial intelligence”. The legal definition still follows 15 U.S.C. 9401(3).
References
Trump Announces an AI Czar for His Newly Created ‘Super Intelligence Force’ (Engadget)
Trump Unveils His New Super Intelligence Force (TechCrunch)
Trump Taps Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton as AI Czar (CNBC)
President Donald Trump Announces Creation of ‘Super Intelligence Force’ AI Task Force (ABC News)
Trump Names Four Officials to Lead His Super Intelligence Force (The Next Web)
Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence (The White House)
Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Inaugurates the Era of Super Intelligence (The White House)
Trump Vows to Form “AI Force,” Says He Won’t Allow Slowdown of AI Development (CBS News)
FTC Investigating Anthropic, OpenAI and Other Companies Over Potential AI Risks (CBS News)
More AI coverage: explore Progressive Robot's AI Models, Tools & Releases hub — hands-on reviews, setup guides and benchmarks in one place.
