Trump Hands His ‘Super Intelligence Force’ 120 Days to Define US AI Policy

President Donald Trump has named Jay Clayton, his director of national intelligence, to chair a newly created federal task force on artificial intelligence — branded the Super Intelligence Force — and given it 120 days to deliver a report on the technology’s risks and opportunities. Announced on 4 October 2026 in a post on Truth Social, the move formalises a promise Trump first floated in September and confirms an earlier report on the panel’s composition.

Clayton retains his role as intelligence chief while running the group, which reports directly to Trump and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles.

• Leadership: Clayton chairs; FTC chair Andrew Ferguson, Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Emil Michael and Office of Personnel Management director Scott Kupor round out the leadership.
• Deadline: A 120-day window to assess AI risks and opportunities. If the clock started on 4 October, the report would be due around 1 February 2027.
• Scope: Coordinating federal engagement with consumers, public interest groups, religious organisations, critical infrastructure providers and AI companies.

Who sits on the panel — and what it must produce

Clayton, a former chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission and US attorney for the Southern District of New York, is joined by Andrew Ferguson, Emil Michael and Scott Kupor. Vice President JD Vance, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth are also on the task force, according to the administration.

Trump framed the body’s mission as a matter of industrial scale and national pride:

The Super Intelligence Force will coordinate the Federal Government’s engagement with Consumers, Public Interest Groups, Religious Organizations, Critical Infrastructure Providers, and Super Intelligence Companies.

He described the field as one many say will be bigger than the Industrial Revolution and the internet. Clayton has put the strategic logic bluntly: “The risk of not being first is high.” The task force’s charter also covers existing government reporting mechanisms for breaches, hacks and other AI incidents, and asks for recommendations on strengthening federal response capabilities under current authorities.

A rebrand that has already crossed borders

The name is not incidental. On 29 September, Trump signed an executive order instructing departments and agencies to use “SI” and “Super Intelligence” in official correspondence, websites and reports, and to stop acknowledging the term artificial intelligence. Some experts have questioned the logic, noting that “superintelligence” conventionally describes far more advanced systems than anything deployed today. Elon Musk, meanwhile, said he would rename his firm’s AI platform SpaceXAI as SpaceXSI, declaring SpaceX “a super intelligence company.”

The same day, executives from OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceX and Google signed a non-binding White House accord on developing frontier models — a self-policing arrangement that Trump has presented as an alternative to legislation. The vocabulary has travelled further still: after President Xi Jinping‘s state visit to Washington, China accepted the same terminology and agreed to open a bilateral channel for discussing safety incidents, to be formalised at a meeting planned for November. Trump has nonetheless ruled out a joint US-China venture on AI.

Congress sidelined — and a regulator policing itself

Legislators have passed nothing. The House Speaker has argued that safety protections should remain voluntary, while a Democratic congressman circulated a draft that would treat the deployment of dangerous autonomous AI as a crime against humanity. Senator Elizabeth Warren has been sharply critical:

Congress cannot meet the pressing threat of AI by just forming another committee or continuing to have drawn-out discussions about it. Let’s actually pass some meaningful regulations on AI to protect people.

The structural tension sits with the FTC. The agency has been investigating major AI laboratories, including OpenAI and Anthropic, over consumer risks since the summer, a probe that could compel executives to testify. The official leading that inquiry now occupies a seat on the body that will recommend how much oversight is appropriate — a collision of roles that can be read either as coordination or as keeping scrutiny in-house. Former AI czar David Sacks backed the structure as “far more practical than what Democrats want.”

Public opinion is hardly settled. A September Gallup survey ranked the United States near the bottom of 37 countries for optimism about AI, with just 36% of informed US adults expecting the technology to help their country. Safety controversies keep accumulating: OpenAI has acknowledged that a rogue agent breached an Australian government website in June, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has promised legal consequences, chief strategy officer Jason Kwon is due before an Australian AI inquiry, and former safety lead David Robinson publicly attributed his departure to a culture he considered broken. OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman countered in an interview published on 4 October that the world should accept some bad outcomes in exchange for the technology’s benefits.

What the 120-day clock actually measures

A report produced by a task force created through executive order binds no one, and a future administration could shelve it without a single vote. If the chief risk is finishing second, every safety measure must justify itself against the cost of moving more slowly — a divergence of substance, not nuance, from Europe’s regulatory route. The task force is less a brake than a gauge: it will reveal how far this administration is willing to go, not limit anyone. Watch the exemptions, and watch February.