Trump backs state-level superintelligence push as data-centre votes and chip shares slide

President Donald Trump said on Friday 6 November that he is "100% in favor of Super Intelligence (SI)" and would work with US states that want to "become RICH" by having it, writing on Truth Social that such states are "GOLD" and that only "foolish leadership" would say no to the riches they bring. The pledge, carried by Olhar Digital, The Times of India, Vedomosti, Donya-e Eqtesad and Hespress, puts the US executive branch behind the physical build-out on which AI development depends — data centres and the electricity and water they consume — at a moment when local ballots are moving the other way.

According to The Times of India, voters in several parts of the country backed measures to restrict or temporarily halt data-centre construction in midterm elections held on Tuesday 3 November. Citing Axios, the paper reported that nearly two dozen of 41 data-centre-related ballot measures across 10 states appeared headed for approval on preliminary results, several of them seeking restrictions or temporary pauses, reflecting concern that such facilities could raise utility bills, strain local resources and affect the environment. Olhar Digital reported that Trump did not detail which measures he intends to adopt, and that he had written on 20 October that large data centres should generate their own electricity, sell surplus power to local utilities and provide financial benefits to nearby residents.

The political signal coincided with heavy selling in technology shares. Olhar Digital reported that Japan's Nikkei fell 5.96 per cent and South Korea's Kospi 6.02 per cent on Friday, the latter down as much as 8.55 per cent intraday before a 20-minute trading suspension; SK Hynix lost 10.4 per cent, Samsung Electronics 6.4 per cent, SoftBank about 11 per cent and TSMC 4.7 per cent. In the United States, Tesla fell 10.8 per cent, Nvidia 9.3 per cent and AMD 17.3 per cent, while the Philadelphia semiconductor index dropped 12.2 per cent. Celso Camilo, a professor at the Federal University of Goiás, told g1, as cited by Olhar Digital, that the election was not the cause of the decline but its trigger, and that the AI market was already fragile; he placed the most immediate risks at state level, in licensing, power supply and possible moratoriums, and in possible changes to tax incentives.

Viewed from Austin, the contest with the clearest bearing on AI infrastructure was the Texas governorship. The Times of India, citing Axios, reported that Democrat Gina Hinojosa defeated Republican Governor Greg Abbott after campaigning to maintain a moratorium on new data centres until lawmakers address electricity, water supplies, air quality and property rights. The same report, citing the research firm SemiAnalysis by way of Axios, projected that Texas would account for 41 per cent of new US data-centre capacity in 2028, noted Democratic wins in the Ohio, Georgia and Arizona governorships, and said the results could complicate plans for an estimated $10 trillion expansion of US AI infrastructure.

The terminology is itself contested. Donya-e Eqtesad reported that a 29 September executive order requires US agencies to use "superintelligence" instead of "artificial intelligence" in correspondence, reports and official documents, while noting that the term operates within the existing legal definition of AI and that renaming the technology does not create a new, independent one. Vedomosti reported that on 27 October Trump announced he would formally drop the "artificial intelligence" label, that on 8 October he called those who kept using it opponents of the White House, and that on 4 October he announced a "Superintelligence Force" working group to coordinate federal agencies. Hespress reported that Russian deputy foreign minister Alexander Alimov told RIA Novosti that Moscow viewed the renaming with concern, casting it as part of a wider US strategy for technological dominance.

The supplied accounts contain no timetable for federal action and no figure for the support on offer, leaving the operative question — what Washington will actually extend to states that host the infrastructure — unresolved.