This particular consent decree would a give judge binding control to enforce whatever the White House says.

The ADA is, in important contrast to this situation, a law.

As I said: it gives a judge binding control, not the White House.

A distinction with out a difference because this is entirely about whether Columbia agrees to do whatever the White House says it has to do.

No. The consent decree will be agreed to ahead of time, and a judge will interpret and police it. It isn't an arbitrary delegation of authority to the executive branch.

We'll have to wait and see what the consent decree says to evaluate it further.

Good point, we'll just have to wait and see if the people with the proven history of bad faith and process subversion will subvert it this time, too bad there's no way to know ahead of time!

No. I know this is an emotionally satisfying thing to say, but, again, my point is that a federal judge administers the consent decree, so the White House can't simply go back and say "gotcha, we meant XYZ, not ABC" a year after agreement is struck.

The administration also doesn't generally get to pick the judge. Given where Columbia is, it would presumably be a random SDNY judge.

A very important detail: Who picks the judge?

The court district itself, but generally: it's random (within the district).

If we could listen into the consent degree negotiations, I would expect something like.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZKUozrBl4

>A consent decree doesn't give the White House binding control over Columbia; it gives a federal judge that control.

It’s gives the judge control to enforce the White House’s decree. What meaningful distinction are you making?

The distinction between Article III and Article II of the Constitution? A randomly-chosen SDNY judge is overwhelmingly likely to be a Clinton, Obama, or Biden appointee?

I still think this will be a shitshow, but the headline that "the White House is seeking binding control via a consent decree" is misleading; that's not how a consent decree works.