If this is an executive order then it can be struck down as soon as the next president is sworn in. Executive orders are easy-come, easy-go ...
I think the point is to issue common-sense executive orders and force the Democrats to justify striking them down.
I don't like requiring proof that a person knowingly broke a regulation to criminally charge them. I can think of a few examples where that would have been good. But I think generally the US doesn't prosecute large scale violations enough. Deep Water Horizon, the Flint water crisis, the housing crisis, and the Volvo emissions scandal are all examples where almost no one went to jail. This seems like it would cripple environmental protection and make corporate legal defense much easier.
It might have some benefit for small businesses. But it doesn't protect against heavy fines. And my current assumption is agencies are already not likely to settle with criminal charges.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2010/07/22/rough-justice
> America imprisons people for technical violations of immigration laws, environmental standards and arcane business rules. So many federal rules carry criminal penalties that experts struggle to count them. Many are incomprehensible. Few are ever repealed, though the Supreme Court recently pared back a law against depriving the public of “the intangible right of honest services”, which prosecutors loved because they could use it against almost anyone.
One day Trump will refer to this as some sort of achievement or having struck out at "the enemy". That is the point.