Trump's Super Intelligence Force has no education seat: schools and employers should not wait for one

On Sunday 4 October 2026, President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social the creation of a "Super Intelligence Force", a federal task force to coordinate the United States government's work on artificial intelligence. It will be chaired by Jay Clayton, the Director of National Intelligence, with Federal Trade Commission chair Andrew Ferguson, Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering Emil Michael and Office of Personnel Management director Scott Kupor as vice-chairs. According to the announcement, as reported by TechCrunch, ABC News, the Washington Post and Bloomberg, the force will coordinate the government's engagement with "Consumers, Public Interest Groups, Religious Organizations, Critical Infrastructure Providers, and Super Intelligence Companies", and has 120 days to produce a report on AI risks and opportunities.

The force follows an executive order of 29 September directing federal agencies to use the term "super intelligence" in place of "artificial intelligence", and a one-page accord on AI safety signed at the White House by the heads of several frontier labs. Its stated purpose is to ensure that America "continues to lead the World in Super Intelligence", with a charter that, according to TechCrunch, stresses "preventing overregulation and regulatory capture that would stifle innovation". Coverage so far notes that the announcement did not set out a budget, statutory powers or how the force's work will be made public.

The membership matters more than the name. The people named bring intelligence, competition policy, defence research and the management of the federal workforce. Those are real responsibilities. But the places where most people will meet AI first, the classroom, the workplace, the family home and the daily question of what to trust, have no named owner in this announcement. No education, labour or child-welfare body is listed. Washington is not alone in this: in most countries, AI governance is being assembled around security and markets, while the people-facing questions are left to whoever will pick them up.

Dan Fitzpatrick's view is that this is a reason to act, not to wait. Teachers and workers are already ahead of policy; they have been using these tools for years without anyone's permission. The bigger risk is paralysis: leaders who read an announcement like this and conclude the matter is being handled somewhere above them. A report due in 120 days will not tell a head teacher whether a 14-year-old's homework should be done with an AI tutor, or tell a business owner which decisions must stay with a person. Those questions are live today and are being answered, well or badly, one organisation at a time.

What school and business leaders should do now is practical. Name one person who owns AI in your organisation, with a remit that covers learning, workload and trust rather than only security. Write down which decisions stay human: assessment judgements, decisions about people's jobs, safeguarding, anything a parent or employee would expect a person to answer for. Outsource the doing, not the thinking. Make AI literacy a basic expectation for every member of staff and every student, not a club for enthusiasts. And ask the equity question directly: who has access to good tools and good teaching, and who does not, because that gap is widening faster than any policy is closing it.

Dan Fitzpatrick has spent several years working with schools, education bodies and governments on how AI is changing learning and work, and writes and speaks regularly on the subject. His position throughout has been consistent: curiosity over fear, evolution over revolution, and humanity at the centre of every decision about these tools.

Dan Fitzpatrick is available for interview and comment on this story.