Donald Trump has announced the creation of a new “Super Intelligence Force” (SIF), saying its mission is to guarantee American dominance in what his administration now officially calls “Super Intelligence” instead of artificial intelligence.
Trump describes the technology as potentially
“bigger than the Industrial Revolution and the Internet.”
But behind the dramatic branding is a development that deserves considerably more scrutiny.
The force will be led by Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton, alongside FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, Pentagon technology chief Emil Michael and OPM Director Scott Kupor. It will coordinate government interaction with AI companies, infrastructure operators, religious organizations, consumer groups and others — and report directly to Trump and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.
The obvious question is: why is America’s intelligence chief at the center of civilian AI policy?
Artificial intelligence is no longer just about chatbots or productivity. It touches surveillance, cyberwarfare, military targeting, intelligence collection, communications, economic competition and potentially the automation of state power.
Placing the DNI, Pentagon and other federal institutions at the center of this structure risks further blurring the boundary between commercial technology and America’s national-security establishment.
Even more questionable is the regulatory model behind it.
Days earlier, Google, Meta, OpenAI, Nvidia, Anthropic and xAI signed Trump’s White House accord promising internal safeguards, external audits and corporate oversight. But the agreement is voluntary rather than legally enforceable. In other words, some of the most powerful technology corporations on Earth are still being asked largely to police themselves.
This does not automatically mean the SIF is some sinister new intelligence agency. But concentrating AI strategy around the White House, intelligence community, Pentagon and a handful of giant technology corporations should concern anyone interested in privacy, democratic oversight and the future balance of power.
And there is another dimension: Washington increasingly sees advanced AI as a strategic race with China. So beneath the futuristic language about improving people’s lives lies something much more familiar — another contest for technological, economic and military supremacy.
The real question is therefore not whether America will achieve “Super Intelligence.” It is who will control it — and who will control those who control it.