Trump Removes "Supreme Intelligence" from AI Renaming Vote
On September 19, U.S. President Trump initiated a vote on his social platform Truth Social, inviting users to choose a new name for "artificial intelligence" (AI) from three options: "Superior Intelligence" (SI), "Extreme Intelligence" (EI), and "Supreme Intelligence" (also SI). The next day (September 20), Trump announced the removal of the "Supreme Intelligence" option from the vote, citing its association with the U.S. Supreme Court, which led to its lower vote count.
When launching the vote, Trump stated that the term "artificial intelligence" is considered "inaccurate and lacking in elegance" by many, and he hoped to find a "more elegant and accurate description" for this "growing 'revolution.'" The vote attracted over 93,000 participants, and prior to the removal of "Supreme Intelligence," the vote counts showed "Superior Intelligence" at 39.4%, "Supreme Intelligence" at 30.7%, and "Extreme Intelligence" at 28.8%.
Some of Trump's supporters with religious backgrounds expressed dissatisfaction with the term "Supreme Intelligence," arguing that "only God is supreme intelligence." However, in a follow-up post on September 20, Trump did not mention religious factors but attributed the removal to the term's association with the Supreme Court. He wrote: "'Supreme Intelligence' is currently lagging significantly behind 'Superior' and 'Extreme Intelligence,' possibly due to its association with the Supreme Court. Therefore, we will remove 'Supreme Intelligence' as an option and ask everyone to vote between the last two options—Superior Intelligence or Extreme Intelligence." About an hour after this statement, "Superior Intelligence" led "Extreme Intelligence" by a narrow margin in the subsequent voting.
Alongside this renaming vote, Trump also announced the formation of an "AI Force," comparing it to the "Space Force" created during his first presidential term, which he called "a tremendous success." Trump did not provide details on the specific responsibilities, organizational structure, or operational methods of the "AI Force," only promising to announce an "AI czar" candidate "in the near future" and stating that "only high-IQ individuals can apply."
Trump linked his commitment to protecting the AI industry with his criticisms of Democrats, accusing them of spreading "scam" rhetoric against data centers and the AI industry. He promised that his government would "value, support, and protect" the development of AI while overseeing misconduct in the industry through existing legal frameworks. He also predicted that the AI industry could eventually account for 25% of the U.S. GDP and reiterated the need for the U.S. to maintain its lead over China in this field.
From the perspective of public opinion dissemination and political mobilization, this "AI renaming vote" does not directly impact any specific policies or market funding flows, but it quickly became embroiled in public controversy—from religious groups' dissatisfaction with the term "Supreme Intelligence" to the interpretation of its removal as "avoiding sensitive associations due to its connection with the Supreme Court." This reflects that even symbolic, non-binding online votes can rapidly evolve into public issues when involving politically sensitive vocabulary. Meanwhile, the simultaneous announcement of the "AI Force" formation plan and the optimistic prediction of "AI accounting for a quarter of the U.S. GDP" serves more to set the tone for his government's AI industry policy and to garner support from the tech industry and the public, rather than providing specific executable regulatory details.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Trump's initiation of an online vote to solicit a new name for AI continues his strategy of shaping the public agenda through informal polls on social media—consistent with his previous practices of seeking "public opinion" on policy issues and personnel appointments on Truth Social and X. Comparing the newly established agency to the "Space Force" created during his first term is also a common historical narrative technique he employs, using previously proven "successful" examples to endorse new proposals. Additionally, the Trump administration has previously intervened in AI industry policy-making through related executive orders, and this renaming vote and the "AI Force" announcement represent a continuation of his high-profile, unconventional engagement with AI issues.
In terms of resource and attention mobilization, this vote itself does not involve actual financial flows, but its role is similar to a low-cost accumulation of political capital—by creating a hot topic online, Trump can continue to associate himself with the image of "protector of the AI industry" and "defender of America's technological leadership" without utilizing actual financial or regulatory resources. Meanwhile, his simultaneous prediction that "AI will account for a quarter of the U.S. GDP" and the formation plan for the "AI Force" seem more like groundwork for potential future resource investments (such as related departmental budgets and the appointment of an "AI czar"). Once there are specific administrative or legislative resource inputs, this kind of preliminary public opinion mobilization often reduces resistance to advancement.
A directly comparable historical precedent is the process of creating the "Space Force" during Trump's first term—at that time, he also established public awareness through high-profile promotion and public opinion mobilization before gradually implementing specific organizational structures, budgets, and personnel arrangements; the method of proposing the "AI Force" almost completely replicates this path. Currently, the AI industry policy at the federal government level in the U.S. is still in the "narrative first, details lagging" early stage—neither the organizational structure of the "AI Force" nor the specific candidates and responsibilities of the "AI czar" have substantial details yet, and policy-making relies more on high-level public statements and public opinion mobilization to test social acceptance.
Essentially, this represents a concentration of regulatory narrative capital—at a stage where the AI industry policy has not formed a clear legislative framework, the president personally sends signals through social media, effectively centralizing the "interpretation and agenda-setting power of AI industry policy" within the executive branch and even the president's office, rather than allowing Congress or independent regulatory agencies to lead. This concentration occurs because AI, as an emerging technology field, has not formed a mature regulatory framework and established interest game patterns, giving executive leaders space to quickly seize agenda-setting power through informal channels (social media votes, verbal commitments). The rapid removal of "Supreme Intelligence" due to its sensitive association with the Supreme Court illustrates that even symbolic language choices can be incorporated into broader political power struggles.
ABAB News · Cognitive Law
- Even changing a name must avoid the minefields of power structures.
- Public opinion mobilization always precedes the landing of specific details.
- Whoever can set the agenda gains the right to interpretation ahead of regulation.