State Dept drops 'AI' from 100% of UN-bureau communications

The Associated Press reported on September 23, 2026, that the State Department has ordered diplomats in its Bureau of International Organization Affairs to stop using the term "artificial intelligence" and instead use "super intelligence" in all communications, documents, and public positions. The directive was issued in an internal email by Michael Drager, deputy assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, and came immediately after President Donald Trump promoted the term "super intelligence" during his address to the United Nations General Assembly. The email, titled "Change in Nomenclature AI to SI," instructed employees to replace all references to "Artificial Intelligence" with "Super Intelligence" and to use the abbreviation "SI" in remarks, positions, and press elements moving forward. This bureau is responsible for U.S. diplomatic missions to all U.N. and multilateral agencies around the world, which means the terminology shift has immediate relevance to international AI governance, standards discussions, and multilateral negotiations. The order is a striking example of a political branding decision being pushed into the operational language of diplomacy, with potentially far-reaching consequences for how the United States engages on technology policy at the global level. Unlike a marketing slogan, this change affects official U.S. government communications, which are used in treaty language, resolutions, and bilateral agreements. If American diplomats begin substituting "SI" for "AI," it could create confusion among international partners who continue to use the globally accepted term "artificial intelligence." The directive does not change the underlying technology; it only changes the vocabulary. However, vocabulary matters in diplomacy, where precise terminology can determine the scope of agreements and the interpretation of commitments. The phrase "super intelligence" also carries a distinct meaning in the technical community. In AI research and safety, "superintelligence" typically refers to a hypothetical intelligence that surpasses human cognitive abilities across all domains. By using "super intelligence" as a blanket replacement for "artificial intelligence," the State Department is conflating current AI systems—such as machine learning models, natural language processing tools, and computer vision systems—with a theoretical future technology that does not yet exist. This conflation could undermine the credibility of U.S. positions in technical working groups and slow negotiations on AI safety, ethics, and governance. It may also affect how U.S. agencies coordinate on AI policy, since other parts of the government, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Department of Commerce, continue to use the standard term "artificial intelligence." The directive appears to apply only to the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, not the entire State Department or federal government, but even this narrower mandate covers a significant slice of U.S. multilateral engagement. The move reflects a broader pattern in which political leadership seeks to reshape technical and scientific language to match ideological or branding preferences. The decision to use "super intelligence" may be intended to make the technology sound more powerful, futuristic, or distinct from previous AI initiatives, but it introduces ambiguity into formal diplomatic records. International partners, including the European Union, the United Kingdom, and other U.N. member states, have built extensive regulatory frameworks around the term "artificial intelligence." A unilateral U.S. terminology change in multilateral settings could complicate alignment on shared definitions, data governance, and accountability standards. It could also affect the work of U.N. agencies such as UNESCO, the International Telecommunication Union, and the U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs, which have active AI-related programs. If American diplomats insist on "super intelligence" while other delegations use "artificial intelligence," joint statements may require awkward compromises or footnotes. The order also raises questions about whether the new term will be adopted in official U.S. statements to the U.N. General Assembly, Security Council resolutions, or other multilateral documents. The AP report did not indicate whether the directive has been reviewed by State Department legal or technical experts, nor whether there is a plan to define "super intelligence" for diplomatic purposes. The lack of a clear definition is itself a risk. Without a shared understanding of what "super intelligence" means, U.S. diplomats may find themselves using a term that is either too broad or too narrow for the topics under discussion. The move is likely to be closely watched by AI policy professionals, researchers, and foreign ministries, who will assess whether this is a temporary rhetorical shift or a lasting change in U.S. technology diplomacy. In the near term, expect confusion as international partners determine how to respond to U.S. documents that use "SI" instead of "AI." In the longer term, the directive may be tested in multilateral negotiations, where precise language is essential for legally binding agreements. The incident also illustrates how quickly a single presidential speech can alter the vocabulary of an entire diplomatic bureau, and it underscores the importance of terminology governance in international affairs.