I see, you're saying the stupidity here is that they didn't clarify whether it applies to existing holders. Given that possible explanation-via-stupidity, it's unlikely that it was pure malice. I actually think you make a good point. I think the proposed method-via-stupidity is important for understanding your initial claim, I doubt many people have read the EO (indeed many will not even read the linked article)

Yeah, exactly. Given the text of the EO plus the public statements about it from the administration, it sounds like an ambiguous drafting, coupled with lawyers doing what they do best (i.e. the most conservative possible interpretation of any ambiguity).