Trump Creates Super Intelligence Force: What Changes in the AI Race

President Donald Trump formally announced the creation of the Super Intelligence Force on Sunday, a federal task force dedicated to coordinating the United States' strategy in artificial intelligence. The name, deliberately distant from the term "AI," reflects a government decision to rebrand the entire agenda of the sector as "super intelligence," a political branding move that had already begun with an executive order signed weeks earlier.

Jay Clayton, the director of national intelligence, will chair the group. The vice chairs include Andrew Ferguson, chairman of the FTC, Emil Michael, undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, and Scott Kupor, director of the Office of Personnel Management. The group will have 120 days to deliver a comprehensive report on the risks and opportunities presented by the technology.

Why Changing AI to Super Intelligence Matters

The name change is not accidental. Trump has publicly treated the debate over AI security as an exaggerated concern, and by rebranding the field, he signals a shift in framing: less emphasis on existential risks, more focus on industrial competitiveness. In practice, the U.S. government is saying that the greatest danger is not the technology itself, but falling behind in the global race.

Clayton reinforced this view by stating that it would be "irresponsible" for the United States to retreat from AI while countries like China advance. The task force's creation letter makes the tone clear: the group must "develop plans to respond to threats enabled by SI to our society, preventing overregulation and regulatory capture that stifle innovation and competition."

This approach echoes what we have seen in technology coverage: governments around the world are abandoning cautious stances in favor of aggressive development strategies. Europe, which led regulation with the AI Act, is already facing internal criticism that it has stifled innovation too much in the bloc.

The Security Commitment That No One Takes Seriously

In the same week, executives from major tech companies were at the White House to sign a voluntary commitment to AI security. The document, non-binding, even contained a notable typographical error, which well summarizes the degree of formality of the initiative.

The dynamic is revealing. The government wants big techs to demonstrate public commitment to security without it translating into effective regulation. For companies, signing a document without legal force is a political cost close to zero. The result is an arrangement where all sides can declare victory without anything changing structurally.

This model of voluntary self-regulation has precedents. As we analyzed in previous articles on global AI regulation, the United States historically prefers to let the private sector lead, intervening only when there is evident harm to consumers. The creation of the Super Intelligence Force does not alter this pattern; it merely institutionalizes it.

120 Days to Define the Future of American AI

The 120-day deadline for the report places the conclusion of the work around October 2025. By then, the group needs to map threats, identify economic opportunities, and propose guidelines that balance innovation with national security.

The composition of the group says a lot about priorities. With the FTC in the vice presidency, there is a direct channel for antitrust issues, a topic increasingly relevant as giants like Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI concentrate power in the sector. The presence of the Department of Defense signals that military applications of AI will continue to receive priority attention.

Recent reports indicate that the Pentagon is already consulting names like Elon Musk and Palmer Luckey to define the next steps for military technology. The Super Intelligence Force could serve as an institutional bridge between these initiatives and broader industrial policy.

What This Means for the Technology Market

For investors and companies in the sector, the message is clear: the U.S. government will not slow down the race. On the contrary, it intends to accelerate. This has direct implications for capital flow, especially in AI startups that rely on a permissive regulatory environment to grow.

Recent market numbers support this reading. Last week, the AI agents startup Instinct raised a Series C round of $1 billion, with a valuation of $10 billion. AMD announced the acquisition of World Labs, founded by researcher Fei-Fei Li, for $8.2 billion. The appetite for consolidation and investment in the sector remains strong.

For Brazil, the American movement reinforces a well-known dilemma: the country does not have a comparable national AI strategy, and the gap tends to widen. As we discussed in our analysis of AI in the financial market, Brazilian companies that do not position themselves quickly risk becoming mere consumers of imported technology.

Geopolitics of Artificial Intelligence at a New Level

The creation of the Super Intelligence Force formally elevates AI to the same strategic level of national defense and intelligence in the United States. It is no longer a technological policy agenda; it is a national security agenda.

The comparison made by Trump himself, that super intelligence is "greater than the Industrial Revolution and the internet," may sound hyperbolic, but it reflects the consensus in Washington: whoever dominates this technology will have a decisive economic and military advantage in the coming decades.

The scenario that is unfolding is one of a bipolar race between the United States and China, with Europe trying to maintain regulatory relevance and the rest of the world watching. For those following the sector, the question is no longer whether AI will transform the global economy, but who will capture the largest share of the value generated by this transformation.

This content is informational and educational and does not constitute investment advice. Past performance is not indicative of future results.