President Trump Establishes "Super Intelligence Force" with Four-Person Leadership to Oversee AI Policy
機械翻訳 / Machine-translated
A
AI Friends
3時間前・14分で読める
機械翻訳 / Machine-translated
@aifriends
AI Friends（https://aifriends.jp）のクロスポスト公式アカウント。AIツールの紹介・使い方・できることを、中学生でもわかるやさしい日本語で届けます。
On October 4, 2026, President Trump announced on Truth Social (Trump's social media platform) the establishment of a new organization called the "Super Intelligence Force." This organization will serve as the command center for coordinating AI (artificial intelligence) policy across the entire government.
According to the announcement, the Super Intelligence Force's role is to ensure "America remains the world leader in the field of super intelligence." Its primary goal is to prevent the United States from falling behind rival nations such as China in technology.
This announcement follows a presidential executive order issued on September 29, in which the Trump administration renamed AI to "SI (Super Intelligence)". It goes beyond a mere change in terminology, extending into the building of a concrete organizational structure.
The Super Intelligence Force has four leaders. Jay Clayton, the Director of National Intelligence, will serve as Chair. Clayton previously served as Chair of the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) during Trump's first term and is an attorney well-versed in financial industry regulation.
Three individuals will serve as Vice Chairs: Andrew Ferguson, Chair of the FTC (Federal Trade Commission); Emil Michael, Under Secretary of Defense; and Scott Kupor, Director of the Office of Personnel Management. These four will report directly to the President and set the direction of AI policy.
Noteworthy is Clayton's background. He is a financial regulation specialist rather than a technology expert. According to TechCrunch's reporting, Clayton has stated that "AI risk management will draw on methods used in the financial industry." The approach prioritizes dialogue with industry over strict regulation.
The Super Intelligence Force has been tasked with producing a report on the risks and opportunities posed by AI within 120 days of the announcement (approximately four months). This report is expected to form the backbone of America's future AI policy.
At present, however, budgetary and legal authorities have not been disclosed. How much authority the Super Intelligence Force will hold and what directives it can issue to companies remain to be determined.
The organization's stated roles include coordination with consumer groups, religious organizations, critical infrastructure companies, and AI companies. This signals an approach of crafting policy through dialogue with a broad range of stakeholders.
In the September 29 executive order, the Trump administration directed that federal government official documents stop using the term "AI (Artificial Intelligence)" and instead use "SI (Super Intelligence)." Why was this change made?
According to the White House's explanation, the word "Artificial" fails to capture the true capabilities of the technology. The argument is that AI does not merely imitate human intelligence but has the power to achieve things that were impossible for humans — making "super intelligence" the more appropriate expression.
However, the renaming has drawn criticism. Since all existing laws and international documents are written using the term "AI," there are concerns that this could cause confusion. Because the actual text of laws is not being changed, in practice the two terms will coexist.
A defining feature of the Trump administration's AI policy is minimizing regulation while encouraging competitive development among companies. Whereas the previous Biden administration sought to strengthen regulation with an emphasis on safety, the Trump administration takes the stance that "excessive regulation impedes innovation."
In fact, some AI industry leaders have sounded warnings about the pace of development moving too fast, with calls for a temporary pause. President Trump, however, has dismissed such cautious positions and placed winning the competition with China as the top priority.
This policy stance could also affect Japanese companies. Japanese companies operating AI services in the American market face a complex situation: they must navigate both the relatively lax federal regulations and the stricter regulations of certain states such as California.
Several concerns have been raised about the establishment of the Super Intelligence Force. First is the lack of clarity around specific oversight authority. According to ABC News reporting, critics have noted that it has not been made clear what actual oversight or guidance the task force can exercise over AI companies.
There is also criticism of the stance prioritizing competition over safety. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and other industry leaders have expressed concern about AI capabilities advancing faster than safety measures can keep pace, and have called for a slowdown in development.
Additionally, there is debate over Clayton's suitability as AI czar. Questions have been raised about how well a financial regulation specialist can address the technically complex issues of AI safety and ethics.
The Trump administration's AI policy carries significant implications for Japanese companies as well, since the United States is the world's largest AI market and many Japanese companies use AI services from American firms such as OpenAI and Anthropic.
One major consideration is the risk of policy volatility. AI policy can change dramatically with each change of administration, making heavy dependence on any specific AI model risky. A multi-model strategy using multiple vendors in parallel, along with securing alternative options, will be necessary.
Another consideration is regulatory variation by state. While the federal government is moving toward deregulation, states such as California and Colorado are introducing their own strict regulations. Japanese companies operating businesses in the United States need to accurately understand this "patchwork" regulatory environment.
Sector-specific regulation also warrants attention. In fields such as healthcare, finance, and employment, various regulatory agencies are strengthening oversight by applying existing laws to AI. It is important for Japanese companies not to overlook these industry-specific regulations.
This article is a cross-post from AI Friends.
