The DOJ Just Ordered Its Lawyers to Say 'Super Intelligence' Instead of AI — Even in Court Filings
In 60 seconds: The U.S. Justice Department told employees Tuesday to stop saying "artificial intelligence" and start saying "super intelligence" — in public communications, policy documents, official records, and even court filings. The order came in a memo from acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter, implementing Trump's directive to use the new term "to the maximum extent permitted by law."
- A DOJ memo seen by Reuters orders staff to use "super intelligence" and "SI" instead of "AI" in nearly all official business.
- The directive explicitly "shall extend to court filings when appropriate" — a first for any U.S. law-enforcement agency.
- It follows Trump's executive order last week; he says the new term reflects the technology's potential more accurately.
- The State Department already switched weeks ago, and a federal "Super Intelligence Force" has 120 days to report on AI risks.
- Experts warn the rebrand is branding, not science — and could confuse how courts talk about AI liability.
Somewhere in Washington tonight, a federal prosecutor is staring at a draft brief, cursor blinking, wondering whether she's still allowed to type the letters "AI." As of Tuesday, she isn't — not really. America's top law-enforcement agency just got its marching orders on vocabulary, and the memo reads more like a branding workshop than the Department of Justice.
What happened
Reuters reported Tuesday that the Justice Department directed employees to use "super intelligence" instead of "artificial intelligence" when referring to the technology in most circumstances — including in court. The directive came in a memo from acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter.
DOJ employees are to use "super intelligence" and the abbreviation "SI" in place of AI "to the maximum extent permitted by law" in public communications, policy documents, and official records. And then the kicker: the directive "shall extend to court filings when appropriate."
Latest verified facts
The memo is real and dated this week. Reuters saw it; McCotter's memo implements President Trump's executive order from last week mandating the switch across federal agencies.
Trump says "artificial" sounds fake. At the UN General Assembly on September 22, he told world leaders the word "artificial" makes intelligence sound "fake" — "it is not fake. It's actually amazing," he said — and announced U.S. government documents would use "super intelligence." The September 29 executive order made it official.
The DOJ isn't the first domino. The State Department already switched — American diplomats used "SI" at a UN Security Council meeting weeks ago. The DOJ is the first law-enforcement agency to put it in writing, and the first to explicitly cover court filings.
There's a task force too. Trump created a federal "Super Intelligence Force" with 120 days to report on AI risks and opportunities. Reuters notes public perception of AI has soured after hacking incidents raised safety questions — though Trump has resisted new regulations, saying only that the Justice Department would "rein it in" if necessary.
Related coverage: We covered the original rebrand order — "'Artificial' Is Dead: Trump Will Officially Rename AI 'Super Intelligence'" — and the task-force announcement — "Trump Just Put His Spymaster in Charge of AI".
Why it matters
Honestly, the comedy writes itself. Federal prosecutors are now encouraged to walk into court and solemnly reference "SI." Somewhere a defense attorney is already drafting the first objection.
But in a courtroom, words do real work. "Artificial intelligence" is a technical term with decades of settled meaning in computer science and case law. "Super intelligence" is, at the moment, a branding choice — and in AI research, "superintelligence" already means systems vastly exceeding human capabilities, which today's chatbots are not. A label that oversells what the machine can do could tilt juries before the evidence is heard. And AI liability — who's responsible when an agent system causes harm — is one of the murkiest questions in American law. The vocabulary courts use quietly shapes the answers.
Impact on the USA and the world
Inside the U.S., the effect is standardization with a side of confusion. Every federal agency now talks about AI in the same Trump-branded vocabulary. Expect awkward moments: congressional testimony, regulatory filings, and eventually a very memorable Supreme Court brief. Outside the U.S., nobody has to play along — "artificial intelligence" remains the term across global academia, standards bodies, and every other government. Trump's hope that other countries adopt it looks, for now, like a hope.
What happens next
Watch for the leaks. The first federal court filing to use "super intelligence" will surface within days — and the legal press will have a field day. Watch which agencies follow: the Pentagon's AI office, the FTC, the SEC. Then watch the 120-day clock on the Super Intelligence Force report, due early next year — the first real test of whether this is just a label or actual policy under a new name.
Our take: this is the purest distillation of the administration's AI strategy — all narrative, no regulation. The words will change. The machines won't. The law will eventually have to deal with what they actually do, whatever we call them.