California Governor Newsom Directs Continued Use of “Artificial Intelligence” Terminology: Overview for Enterprise Leaders
On September 30, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order directing state agencies and departments under his authority to continue referring to the technology as “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI.”
The order explicitly states that this requirement applies notwithstanding any different or rebranded terminology used by the federal government. The action followed the federal Executive Order issued the previous day that directed federal agencies to use “Super Intelligence” and “SI.”
This creates a formal divergence in official terminology between the federal government and the State of California.
What the California Executive Order Requires
The order instructs California state agencies and departments under the governor’s authority to:
- Continue using the terms “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI” in official materials.
- Maintain this terminology even if the federal government adopts different language, unless otherwise required by law.
The order was issued alongside the signing of additional state legislation related to AI use in employment decisions and layoff notifications.
Context of the Action
The California order was issued one day after the federal Executive Order that directed the use of “Super Intelligence” and “SI” within the executive branch of the federal government. California’s directive maintains the state’s existing terminology for official state communications and documents.
California has separately advanced a series of state-level measures focused on AI safety, independent oversight, worker protections, and related topics in 2026.
Implications for Organizations
Dual Terminology Requirements
Organizations that interact with both federal agencies and California state agencies may encounter different official terms for the same technology. Federal materials will use “Super Intelligence” and “SI.” California state materials will continue to use “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI.”
Teams responsible for multi-jurisdictional documents, proposals, reports, or public-facing content should plan for this difference.
California-Specific Interactions
Organizations submitting materials to California state agencies, participating in state contracts or programs, or maintaining content directed at California government entities should continue to use “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI” in those contexts.
Internal Governance and Documentation
Organizations that maintain responsible AI policies, risk frameworks, or training materials may choose to note the federal–state terminology difference for clarity when operating across jurisdictions.
AI Strategy Considerations
Organizations with significant operations, contracts, or regulatory exposure in California should review how their AI strategy accounts for state-level requirements and terminology alongside federal developments. This is particularly relevant for companies in technology, employment-related services, healthcare, and other regulated sectors.
Practical Considerations for Organizations
- Review California-facing materials (proposals, reports, websites, and contract language) to confirm continued use of “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI.”
- Establish clear internal guidance for teams that produce both federal-facing and California-facing content.
- Brief relevant leadership and compliance teams on the existence of dual official terminology.
- Assess whether internal AI governance documents should reference the federal–state difference for operational clarity.
- Monitor any further California guidance or implementation details related to the executive order.
- Update AI strategy documentation where state engagement, risk language, or multi-jurisdictional operations are affected.
-Organizations tracking state-level AI developments can also consult The AI Table’s 50-State AI Policy Tracker for ongoing updates across jurisdictions.
Resources from The AI Table
The AI Table provides research, policy briefs, and membership programs focused on responsible AI adoption, governance, and AI strategy. These resources are designed to help organizations navigate federal and state policy developments and translate them into practical internal frameworks.
Available materials include guidance on responsible AI and AI strategy policies, data governance and explainability frameworks, and executive briefings for technology and policy leaders.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the California order change the underlying technology or its legal definition?
No. The order addresses official terminology used by California state agencies. It does not alter the technical definition or capabilities of the systems involved.
Are private organizations required to use only “Artificial Intelligence” in California?
No. The order applies to state agencies and departments under the governor’s authority. Private organizations remain free to choose their own terminology.
How should companies handle documents that go to both federal and California agencies?
Organizations may need to maintain dual versions or carefully select terminology based on the receiving authority. Clear internal style guidance can reduce inconsistency.
Does this affect California’s other AI-related laws and measures?
The terminology order is separate from California’s broader set of 2026 measures on AI safety, independent oversight, and worker protections. Those measures continue to use the term “Artificial Intelligence.”
Where can I find the federal counterpart article?
See our companion piece: Trump White House Directs Use of “Super Intelligence” (SI) in Place of “AI”: Overview for Enterprise Leader).
Organizations operating in California or interacting with both federal and state agencies may find it useful to track implementation of the California directive alongside federal developments. For frameworks related to responsible AI, governance, and AI strategy, The AI Table offers research and advisory resources.
