Purely as a textual matter it doesn't require that there be a crim law violated by the "don't cooperate with ICE" instruction. The EO only speaks of prioritizing pros of "any applicable violations of Federal criminal law with respect to State and local jurisdictions whose officials" do (a) or (b).
So in theory, even if the direction not to cooperate with ICE were entirely lawful, the EO directs selective/retaliatory prosecution of other violations by the relevant officials. Cf. the Tish James fraud investigation (w/o comment on the underlying merits, of which I have no info).
Man, the text here is a mess. I def see your reading now, though I didn't see it at first. But I also think there is a "we're going to haul Krasner out in chains" read to it too (is that "unlawfully obstruct" in (a) just a rhetorical flourish?). Now I wonder if the confusion is purposeful or not.
I agree that "haul-em-off-in-chains" is probably the intended effect, whether or not justified by the text. As to whether the confusion is purposeful, I suspect it's more reckless: they simply don't care, b/c these aren't intended to be enforced as such, so long as the intended message is conveyed.
And let's be real --- these almost certainly aren't being reviewed by OLC for "form and legality," notwithstanding 28 C.F.R. § 0.25(b), so we shouldn't be surprised by drafting issues.