US President Donald Trump announced the new Super Intelligence Force on his Truth Social network on Sunday morning. It will be led by Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton, and Trump described its mission in words fit for an advertising billboard: the body is to coordinate the federal government's efforts so that America "continues to lead the world in superintelligence", which, according to him, "many consider bigger than the industrial revolution and the internet".

The name is no accident. In September Trump promised an "AI force" and an AI czar, with an advert in his own style: "Only people with a high IQ should apply!" The president usually dismisses the debate on AI safety as an invention of the "radical left Dumbocrats". Then he signed an executive order officially renaming artificial intelligence "superintelligence", with US officials expected to use the new term.

The tech bosses adopted the new name too. At a White House lunch this week were Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Anthropic's Dario Amodei, and the companies present signed a safety pledge titled Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities. Trump called it "morally binding". Legally it binds no one - signing is entirely voluntary. And the document even misspells the name of the country itself, the United States.

Clayton will lead the force, with Federal Trade Commission chairman Andrew Ferguson, Under Secretary for Research and Engineering at the Department of War Emil Michael and Office of Personnel Management director Scott Kupor as vice-chairs. They have 120 days to report on the risks and opportunities of artificial intelligence. Clayton announced the conclusion before the work began: it would be irresponsible for America "to pull back" while countries like China forge ahead, and one of the biggest risks is "not being first".

The body's charter says it will prepare plans to respond to "threats to society enabled by superintelligence" - and, right next to that, that it will prevent "excessive regulation and regulatory capture that would stifle innovation and competition". So the body meant to count the dangers is also tasked with keeping regulation at bay. If the report comes out bad, who will protect citizens then?

Europe seeks its answer in law: the EU's Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) is in force, with banned practices and fines for violators. Washington offers a rebrand, a "czar" and a four-month deadline. When the two approaches collide, whose side will the companies whose bosses lunched at the White House take?