California AI Terminology Order

Overview

California Executive Order N-10-26 was issued on September 30, 2026, by Governor Gavin Newsom to establish terminology mandates across California executive branch departments and agencies regarding automated technologies. The order requires executive state entities under gubernatorial authority to refer to Artificial Intelligence and AI as “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI”. It responds to federal policy shifts and administrative efforts to rebrand, rename, or use alternative legal or administrative terminology for artificial intelligence technologies, asserting California's commitment to technical precision, regulatory clarity, and public transparency.

California's executive leadership emphasizes that linguistic rebranding does not remove the need to address safety, security, and privacy risks associated with automated systems. California is a major economic and technological center for artificial intelligence research and commercial deployment. By establishing a binding nomenclature directive across the executive branch, the order maintains a coherent and recognizable administrative vocabulary. It takes effect immediately upon gubernatorial signature on September 30, 2026, and directs filing with the California Secretary of State for public recordation and dissemination.

Definitions

Executive Order N-10-26 establishes requirements for terminology usage rather than expanding technical definitions. “Artificial Intelligence” and its abbreviation “AI” are the mandatory standard terms for state executive bodies covered by the directive. The mandate applies to all agencies and departments subject to the Governor's authority.

The order addresses “rebranded or different terminology used by the federal government,” instructing state entities to maintain standard terms regardless of alternate nomenclature adopted by federal agencies or regulatory bodies. Its statutory savings clause, “unless inconsistent with the law,” preserves applicable legal requirements. Agencies must continue to follow statutory definitions or legislature-enacted codes where the law requires specific alternative terms. The clause keeps executive terminology policy subordinate to legislative enactments while maintaining a unified administrative vocabulary where legally permissible.

Governance and Institutional Framework

The institutional framework rests on the constitutional and statutory authority of the Governor of California as head of the state executive branch. Executive orders operate as administrative directives to executive agency directors, department heads, and state officers within that authority. Executive Order N-10-26 requires implementation across state administrative operations, with executive department heads responsible for internal compliance in public communications, official filings, and guidance documents.

Administrative oversight involves the Office of the Governor and the California Office of the Secretary of State. The order directs that it be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State as soon as possible and that widespread publicity and notice be given of it; the signed copy carries an attestation block for Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber. It creates no new body and assigns no task to any named agency.

Key Focus Areas

The principal focus is administrative transparency and protection of public oversight mechanisms. The preamble emphasizes that linguistic changes and rebranded administrative titles must not distract regulators, public oversight bodies, or citizens from addressing safety, cybersecurity, and consumer privacy risks associated with high-capability automated systems. Retaining “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI” prevents fragmented terminology and linguistic evasion across state regulatory programs.

A second focus is regulatory clarity and cross-agency coherence. Consistent nomenclature helps keep public records, regulatory filings, vendor disclosures, and state-funded research initiatives searchable and understandable. The same vocabulary connects agency actions involving AI even when those actions address different functions or risks.

Implementation Framework

The order took effect immediately on signature on 30 September 2026. Its single operative instruction is that all agencies and departments subject to the Governor's authority refer to Artificial Intelligence and AI as “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI”, notwithstanding any rebranded or different terminology used by the federal government, unless that is inconsistent with the law. The order sets no deadline, procedure, reporting duty or review for applying the instruction.

Penalties, Liability, and Appeals

Executive Order N-10-26 includes a disclaimer regarding third-party enforcement and legal liability. It states that the order “is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers, employees, or any other person.” The terminology mandate therefore does not itself create an independently enforceable private right or benefit.

Relationship to Other Instruments

The order names no other instrument. Its preamble refers to rebranded or different terminology used by the federal government for artificial intelligence, and its operative clause yields wherever the law requires otherwise (“unless inconsistent with the law”).

National and Federal Alignment

Executive Order N-10-26 establishes a state policy position that diverges from federal administrative terminology changes. Its preamble addresses federal efforts to use rebranded or altered terminology for artificial intelligence technologies. By requiring California agencies to retain standard terms regardless of federal vocabulary changes, the order asserts state authority over administrative standards within the Governor's jurisdiction.

This approach establishes a stable state benchmark even as federal guidance and agency terminology change across presidential administrations or policy initiatives. California's terminology requirement is intended to keep federal linguistic shifts from weakening the clarity of state public safety, privacy, and consumer protection mandates. Businesses, researchers, and public entities interacting with state government retain a consistent administrative reference point. The savings clause preserves the precedence of applicable law over the directive where a legal inconsistency arises.

Implementation Timeline

Sources and References