No, the President already has that power. The norm of the previous institutions was, largely, to let the agencies do their thing. This administration is not going to do that.
This was a live question in Trump's last administration, but I don't think it is anymore after cases like Lucia?
You are dying on the hill of a pedantic point. A president also has the power to declare an emergency and deploy the military domestically. Doing so would still be a power grab. The term just doesn't have the precise narrow definition you seem to be arguing for. Its colloquial understanding encompasses the use of heretofore unused powers.
This is one of these situations where my immediate instinct is to clarify my own politics, but then I catch myself and conclude that my comments should stand on their own whether or not you feel like you have a partisan affinity to me. Mostly: this is why the threads on these stories are just wretched. You could say I'm wrong and nerd your way out to whether that's the case --- that's what this site is for --- but instead we're all just reflexively venting emotions.
You don't need to clarify anything. It's simple. Everyone here agrees with your logic, your comments do stand on their own. The point of debate is "but I don't see the power grab everybody else is seeing". Which is fine if you don't see it, that's just how you see it. Others see it differently.
You really can't see how they are both powers that presidents (arguably) technically have but which they do not execute? And that a president actually exercising such a power is thus a power grab?
Nothing in my comment is comparing them or suggesting they are comparable.
Then what, in your mind, is the purpose of this EO?