Naive interpretations like this one, of bad faith actions is how we get there.

This same assumption of good faith was wholly present in peoples' responses to project 2025 prior to the election.

They are not acting in good faith.

Try restating the problem: Why is this EO being issued? What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch?

EDIT: For those who do not think this contributes anything: can you answer the question?

“No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law“ would seem to rule out, say, accepting a SCOTUS ruling against the President, should he insist it was wrongly decided.

He took it that way because without a charitable interpretation such as yours, the wording leaves power assigned vaguely enough end run judicial review. Given this administration's history with attempts to grab power, I'd say your interpretation is _far_ too charitable.

If the Supreme Court rules against the Executive, they might order an agency to comply with a ruling or - barring that - hold an agency head in contempt. Under this EO, the agency wouldn't comply, since the agency would assume Trump's read of the law is correct - superceding even the Court's. If they tried to enforce a contempt order, the US Marshals would not comply either. Soldiers that swear allegiance to the Constitution would also have to defer to the President, even if the Supreme Court ordered the military not to obey an unconstitutional order.

The problem is the EO commands absolute subservience to the President's view of the Constitution, which makes it impossible for them to comply with Court orders.