I don't know what you mean by "bound"?
The President, EOs and the exective branch are not immune from court decisions.
If a court rules again an EO, the President would need to abide by that court decision. As per this EO, the department head would do what the President wanted (align to the court order), and would thus be in compliance with the court order.
In the case the President decides to ignore the court order, the department head has an option - do what the President says or do what the court says. If they decided to do what the President says they would also be in violation of the court order. If they did what the court said, they would likely be fired.
It's not like this EO really changes the situation? Before this EO a department head would have the same choices and face the same risk of being fired.
> Sec. 7 is so ridiculous on its face that, while I am sure the Administration seriously does want to impose as much of this control as it can get away with
I'm not sure what you mean? Why is it ridiculous that an agency which derives it's authority from the executive be able to ignore the head of the executive's interpretation of the law? Who would they be accountable to if not the US President? Nobody?
There are no "independent agencies" under the US Constitution. All agencies exist under the purview of the President. What Section 7 says is "no executive agency employee may make an independent interpretation of a law outside that determined by the head of the executive".
This is entirely aligned with prior US Supreme Court decisions that the US President has sole authority over the Executive Branch.
I'm not sure we'd want to have an unelected executive agencies that is unaccountable to head of the executive branch. That just wouldn't even make sense.
What this means is that the President executes Congress' will. Reading the Constitution, there's just no argument for anything else. You have to dig into subsequent history, acts of Congress, and Supreme Court decisions to reach the justifications for the wild increase of presidential power. I'm not saying this is bad per se, just that the Constitution argument is absolutely bankrupt and ahistorical: there was zero appetite for a powerful executive in the Continental Congress.
That's what's so radical about this EO: it's antithetical to the very founding of the US where we rebelled against a king and ultimately adopted a constitution with a very weak executive. It supplants the will of Congress with the will of the executive, undermining the separation of powers, plenary powers, and the very underpinnings of our government.
No, this is completely false. The President doesn't have the authority to fire a department head for following a court order, and if they tried they would get sued and clearly lose, and be forced to reinstate the fired person, and other employees would follow this pattern.
With this EO, the President does get this exact authority, and the courts would be forced to side with the president in the matter of the firing, if the EO is allowed to stand by the SC.
Accountability does not require absolute control. A subordinate official can be permitted (even mandated) to exercise independent judgement and still be accountable for mis-, mal-, and nonfeasance to a higher authority.
And this has, with different precise parameters, long been the statutory model governing the President’s relations with much of the executive branch, with different specific rules applicable to civil service employees generally, Inspectors-General and a few other specially-designated employees in regular departments, and independent agencies.
Independent agencies, that execute their mission rather than the whims of one man (and are accountable to the law) don't make sense to you?
Sure they are, if they want to be. Federal courts don't have their own enforcement arm. Even if they find specific officials in contempt of court, and order them arrested, Trump can simply order the US Marshals service to just... not arrest them.