Hi, I'm one of the authors of this piece. This is just a note to say thanks for the comments. For some context this is what we call a "preprint" (terrible term) of an article which has been submitted for peer review at a research journal. That means that we'll be able to make changes based on comments from reviews by appointed researchers as well as in response to the comments here. In particular your comments are useful in suggesting some changes in how we signpost our argument to make it clearer.
The article is in "academic-ese" and that's deliberate, if understandably irritating to a more general audience. We're targeting a specific audience, and we'll have a shorter and snappier version as well for the final version. As people here know well, the pitch has to be shaped to fit the audience and here we trying to change (a specific kind of) researchers' minds.
It would be possible in the US for something to be enacted by an Executive Action, basically a directive to agencies from the Whitehouse. There is also legislation at the moment in the House and Senata (FRPAA) that would also achieve the same thing. If there was Whitehouse support the chance of the legislation passing is higher and if the legislation gets support there is more chance of an Executive Action so this is going from both ends.
The article is in "academic-ese" and that's deliberate, if understandably irritating to a more general audience. We're targeting a specific audience, and we'll have a shorter and snappier version as well for the final version. As people here know well, the pitch has to be shaped to fit the audience and here we trying to change (a specific kind of) researchers' minds.