Washington creates “Superintelligence Force”: intelligence and defense replace safety frameworks
Listen to this article
Read by Anchor
The White House settled the path of technology governance by moving the artificial intelligence file from the halls of safety discussions to the rooms of the National Intelligence Directorate and the Department of War. President Donald Trump announced the formation of what he described as the “Superintelligence Force,” marking the start of an official phase in which federal policies will be measured against an explicit standard: Washington’s geopolitical superiority and the protection of its leadership against international competitors.
The announcement appeared in a post by Trump on Sunday morning on his “Truth Social” platform, stating that the new force is tasked with coordinating federal government efforts to ensure the United States continues to lead in superintelligence, which he called a transformation whose impact exceeds that of the industrial revolution and the Internet, and aims to protect American interests and improve their lives. The leadership composition of this force, as reported by The Wall Street Journal, reveals the nature of the upcoming phase; National Intelligence Director Jay Clayton will chair it, effectively serving as the chief coordinator for superintelligence, assisted by three deputies: Federal Trade Commission Chair Andrew Ferguson, the Department of War’s Assistant Secretary for Research and Engineering Emily Michael, and Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Cooper.
Combining intelligence leaders, defense research and antitrust officials in a single council reflects a fundamental shift in federal doctrine.This formation translates a trajectory that began last September, when Trump rejected AI safety discussions, calling them a “trick,” and promised to create a special force and appoint a senior official to lead it, limiting candidacy to individuals with superior mental capacities. It was followed by an executive order that replaces the term “artificial intelligence” with “superintelligence,” a term adopted by technology company leaders during their White House meeting to sign a non-binding safety pledge that contains a conspicuous spelling error.
The regulation governing this force gives it a 120-day window to produce a comprehensive report on the risks and opportunities presented by the technology. Its charter defines two parallel tasks: developing plans to counter superintelligence-enhanced societal threats, while simultaneously preventing over-regulation and regulatory capture that hinder innovation and commercial competition. Clayton clearly articulated the new administration’s philosophy, telling The Wall Street Journal that retreat would be irresponsible while countries such as China continue to advance their capabilities, emphasizing that the greatest danger lies not in the speed of deployment but in failing to secure the top position.
Our editorial team examined the dimensions of this shift and its direct impact on our region, and found that the new facts reshape the technology equations for those operating in the Gulf, Egypt and the region as a whole. When Washington frames its policy under the banner of “preventing over-regulation,” imported governance models that relied on slowing deployment in favor of precautionary safety standards lose their most prominent Western backing. A technology executive at a Gulf bank or a regional logistics platform will encounter American models and tools that are released more quickly and with fewer stringent regulatory constraints in their country of origin, shifting the entire burden of auditing and reliability testing onto local engineering teams.
The United States’ abandonment of safety frameworks forces regional technology leaders to establish self-assessment standards to protect their systems.Moreover, intelligence and defense leadership of this initiative makes superintelligence technologies primarily sovereign and security assets, which requires a regional technology leader to review cloud partnership terms and assess reliance on foreign infrastructure in light of possible tightening or amendment of export policies based on the security calculations this federal force will outline in its forthcoming report.