White House AI Summit: Trump’s Rebranding of AI Masks Corporate Power Grab
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
President Trump signed an executive order renaming artificial intelligence to “Super Intelligence,” while tech giants secured a voluntary accord on safety and transparency that critics say lacks real accountability.
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order mandating federal agencies to refer to artificial intelligence as “Super Intelligence,” a move that critics argue is more about branding than substance. The order, issued after a closed-door White House roundtable with executives from some of the world’s most powerful tech corporations, claims the new terminology better reflects the transformative capabilities of these technologies and the supposed opportunities they create for Americans. Agencies now have 60 days to draft legislative language defining “Super Intelligence” and the abbreviation “SI” in federal law, raising concerns about the influence of corporate lobbyists in shaping these definitions.
The summit resulted in a voluntary “White House Accord on Super Intelligence,” signed by executives from Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, Nvidia, and other major firms. The accord outlines internal controls, external audits, and board oversight, but critics point out that these measures are self-imposed and lack meaningful government enforcement. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg claimed the agreement would build public confidence, but skeptics argue that without binding regulation, these companies remain free to prioritize profit over public safety.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, echoing corporate talking points, emphasized the need to avoid “hyperregulation” and instead rely on voluntary industry oversight, all while invoking competition with China as justification for weak safeguards. This approach, favored by big business, risks leaving workers and marginalized communities vulnerable to the unchecked harms of AI.
Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission reiterated that legal liability for AI harms rests with developers and users, not the technology itself, but offered little clarity on how victims will be protected when AI tools malfunction or cause harm. The FTC chair admitted that new questions will arise as AI systems produce unexpected results, highlighting the lack of preparedness for the real-world consequences of these technologies.
The administration also launched an AI-powered website, America.gov, to consolidate federal services online, raising further questions about privacy, data security, and the role of private contractors in public infrastructure.