> what does that actually mean?

It means whatever they decide to enforce. The idea that the current administration considers itself constrained by the letter of any specific law or regulation (even its own) should be cold dead by now. But people still insist on treating with specifics out of habit I guess.

As others here are pointing out (somewhat obliquely, frustratingly), the Occam's explanation for this particular action is just that it's a solicitation for a bribe.