Intentionally including additional categories into a law is often rationalized. Jurisprudence routinely returns to the question of what the government meant by specifically adding in some clauses and not others. That's actually been a subject of considerable jurisprudence over the years—whether or not the government meant to actually exclude other things, because obviously that was intentional, while giving itself the right to do something it could already do. If it could already do it, why did it specify these things? It obviously might be suggesting that actually it was at the expense of what it could also do in other zones.
On June 14th, 2023. See this statement in context.