The Super Intelligence Force is the new federal task force on artificial intelligence that President Donald Trump, naming Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton as its head. The announcement was made via social media and follows a White House meeting with top executives from artificial intelligence companies, where a voluntary self-regulatory agreement was signed. The move marks a new era in AI in the United States, with a focus on national security and strategic competition.
See also: Trump: "AI Force" for artificial intelligence without new restrictions
According to Trump, the Super Intelligence Force will coordinate the federal effort “to ensure that America continues to lead the world in Super Intelligence, which many say is greater than the Industrial Revolution and the Internet.” The group will communicate with consumers, public interest groups, religious organizations, critical infrastructure providers, and AI. The fact that Trump chose to rename artificial intelligence to “super intelligence” reflects a conscious effort to reframe the technology as a strategic national advantage.
The announcement followed a meeting at the White House on September 29th , which was attended by executives from companies including Anthropic, Google, Meta, Nvidia, OpenAI and xAI. The companies signed the White House Accord on Super Intelligence: A Joint Commitment on Frontier SI Responsibilities, a voluntary governance framework for managing security risks in advanced AI. The agreement is not legally binding, does not provide for penalties and does not require companies to publish audit results.
Super Intelligence Force: Composition and structure of the new team
The Super Intelligence Force includes a number of high-ranking US government officials. In addition to Jay Clayton as its leader, the group includes Andrew Ferguson, chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC); Emil Michael, undersecretary of defense for research and engineering and the Pentagon's chief technology officer; and Scott Kupor, director of the Office of Personnel Management. Also expected to participate are Vice President JD Vance, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, technology adviser David Sacks , and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
The team will report directly to Trump and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles . The choice of Jay Clayton — who leads the national intelligence community — to lead the Super Intelligence Force is no coincidence. It places AI security within the national security framework, reflecting concerns that advanced artificial intelligence impacts espionage, cyber operations, military technology, critical infrastructure, and economic competition — not just consumer software.
The White House Accord signed by the companies provides for four layers of governance: strong internal controls to identify and manage AI; internal monitoring teams to identify failures and remediate issues; independent external audits; and board-level committees to evaluate audit results. However, the lack of legal binding force is a significant weakness of the framework.
See also: AI self-policing: Trump & Big Tech sign deal
Super Intelligence Force: Technical Threats and AI Security Risks
The Super Intelligence Force is called upon to address a wide range of technical threats related to the development and use of AI. Among the most critical risks is prompt injection, where an attacker places instructions in input data that cause an AI to ignore its intended policy or misuse connected tools. A similar risk is indirect prompt injection, where malicious instructions embedded in emails, web pages, or documents are processed by an AI agent during normal work.
Other significant threats include data mining through AI with access to internal files or databases, model extraction through repeated queries, and weight theft that exposes intellectual property. data poisoning is also a serious threat, as it allows attackers to implant biased or dangerous behavior into models. Finally, the misuse of API keys and cloud credentials can allow malicious actors to invoke models or gain access to sensitive data.
The effectiveness of the Super Intelligence Force will depend on whether it develops specific technical standards, incident reporting requirements, and mechanisms for testing systems under realistic adverse conditions, rather than acting solely as an advisory forum. A critical question is also the independence of auditors: the White House Accord does not specify who will conduct the audits or how auditors will be selected, raising concerns about conflicts of interest.
Super Intelligence Force: Practical Recommendations for Organizations
Organizations should not consider participating in a voluntary agreement as a substitute for their own security controls. Regardless of developments around the Super Intelligence Force, every organization using AI should maintain an inventory of every model, API, chatbot, plugin, agent, and data source. They should also classify the data has access and implement principles of least privilege.
At a technical level, it is recommended to separate model execution environments from production systems and sensitive networks, require human approval for financial transactions, external communications, and code deployments, and treat model output as untrusted input. Protection against prompt injection requires separating instructions from retrieved content, filtering untrusted sources, and restricting tool permissions. Finally, regular red team for data leak testing, jailbreaks, indirect prompt injection , and excessive AI agent is essential for any modern organization.
See also: Trump order for rapid transition to post-quantum cryptography
In summary, the establishment of the Super Intelligence Force represents a significant policy move that recognizes AI as a strategic technology of national importance. However, the critical question remains: will the Super Intelligence Force voluntary principles into measurable, independently verified requirements? Without common standards, transparent reporting, and consequences for failures, the framework may improve awareness, but leave organizations exposed to uneven security practices.
