The president's framework for frontier AI models relies on cooperation rather than regulation, drawing both praise and scrutiny from the tech sector
President Donald Trump wants to stop calling it artificial intelligence. Going forward, the administration is adopting the term “super intelligence” in official government documents, a rebranding announced at a September 29 tech summit.
The executive order and its voluntary framework #
The foundation of this approach was laid on June 2 with Executive Order 14409, which established a voluntary review framework for what the administration calls “covered frontier models.” Under this system, AI developers can submit their most advanced systems for cybersecurity reviews lasting up to 30 days before public release.
The operative word is “voluntary.” The administration has been careful to distinguish this process from anything resembling a licensing regime or pre-clearance requirement. Companies can participate if they choose to, and there’s no penalty for skipping the line entirely.
Trump has framed this as the sweet spot between reckless permissiveness and heavy-handed regulation. The existing legal apparatus, particularly the Department of Justice, is positioned as the backstop for catching misuse after it happens rather than preventing it through gatekeeping.
AI, tech, and the markets they move—in one daily briefing.
Daily. Free. Join 34,000+ readers across crypto, finance, and policy.
The geopolitical dimension #
Trump made the administration’s stance on international AI governance unmistakable during his September 22 speech at the UN General Assembly, where he declared that the US rejects what he called “globalist control schemes” for super intelligence.
What sparked the cybersecurity focus #
The voluntary review framework didn’t emerge from a vacuum. Internal debates within the administration were reportedly catalyzed by concerns over advanced models like Anthropic’s Mythos series, which demonstrated remarkable capabilities in the cyber domain.
The framework focuses specifically on cybersecurity rather than broader safety concerns. That narrower scope is intentional, keeping the review process manageable and avoiding a sprawling regulatory apparatus that a more comprehensive safety framework would require.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Diego Almada Lopez. For more information on how we create and review content, see our