Newsom signs an executive order: California will keep saying "AI"
Newsom signed EO N-10-26: California state agencies keep using "AI" regardless of federal terminology, answering the "Super Intelligence" rename.
California Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-10-26 on September 30: state agencies will keep using “Artificial Intelligence / AI” no matter what terminology the federal government adopts — a direct answer to Trump’s September 29 order requiring federal documents to say “Super Intelligence.”
Facts
- The order: state agencies, documents and public disclosures continue using “AI”; it argues renaming “doesn’t make a reasonable person ignore documented emerging safety risks.”
- The quote: Newsom said “superintelligence clearly won’t come from the White House — that’s why California keeps leading.”
- Context: Trump’s order rebrands AI as “Super Intelligence” across federal websites, policy documents and press releases, with no legal force and no rewriting of existing rules.
- Sourcing note: IT之家’s report carries no gov.ca.gov link; the N-10-26 number is per the report. The same week California also signed the No Robo Bosses Act.
Editorial take
Terminology splits precede governance splits: federal filings say “Super Intelligence,” California filings say “AI,” and compliance disclosures, procurement catalogs and regulatory reports now need two vocabularies. Read alongside the federal rename order and the Human Control Over AI Act — US AI governance has moved from “whether to regulate” to “whose definition counts,” and compliance tooling needs state-level term mapping.## Background: two terminology tracks
- Federal: Trump’s September 29 order requires federal websites, policy documents and press releases to say “Super Intelligence,” paired with a voluntary industry accord — no legal force.
- California: N-10-26 keeps state usage at “Artificial Intelligence / AI”; the order argues renaming “doesn’t make a reasonable person ignore documented emerging safety risks.”
- Legislation: the same week, Newsom also signed SB 947, the No Robo Bosses Act (our coverage), writing human control into employment law first.
Our take
Terminology splits precede governance splits: federal filings say “Super Intelligence,” California filings say “AI,” and compliance disclosures, procurement catalogs and regulatory reports now need two vocabularies. Read alongside the federal rename order and the Human Control Over AI Act — US AI governance has moved from “whether to regulate” to “whose definition counts.”
Practical impact for builders
- Docs and copy: products selling to government need two terminology templates — federal procurement vs California procurement.
- SEO/GEO: pages citing official terms should differentiate by state; search and AI retrieval will split on queries like “superintelligence order California.”
- Watch: whether other states copy California’s terminology freeze, and whether federal grant terms start binding terminology.
Reactions and precedent
- In-state: California tech employers read the week’s two documents (this order and SB 947) as predictable compliance cost; trade groups warn the terminology split raises documentation costs for multistate businesses.
- Precedent: state-federal terminology divergence is not new — California has long kept independent standards in privacy and environment that spilled into de-facto national norms (CCPA’s effect on privacy vocabulary being the classic case).
- Watch: the full text and implementation details of EO N-10-26 await gov.ca.gov; IT之家’s report is the main translated source for now.
Timeline
- September 29: Trump signs the order rebranding AI as “Super Intelligence” across federal documents, with a voluntary industry accord.
- September 30: Newsom signs N-10-26; California state agencies keep using “AI.”
- Same week: Newsom signs SB 947, the No Robo Bosses Act, effective July 1, 2027.
For builders the operational takeaway is small but real: term-mapping tables in compliance tooling gain a state dimension, marketing copy that quotes official definitions needs a California variant, and any product touching employment decisions in California now answers to SB 947 regardless of what the federal government calls the technology.
The order itself is one page and mostly declarative, which is the point: it costs nothing to comply, is trivially auditable, and forces the terminology question to be answered in writing by every state vendor. Expect copycat orders from other Democratic-led states within weeks if the federal rename sticks.