No Stupid Questions

Incorrect.

The current data agreement between the US and EU is neither a law nor a treaty. It is an executive order, which means it did not pass through Congress and simply reflects the policy of the current administration. Like any other executive order, it could be ignored or overturned by a subsequent administration.

Furthermore, it does not mean "GDPR is actually the law in the US". It means that the current US administration will cooperate in enforcing certain privacy rights against US law enforcement and the intelligence community. It does not give EU citizens the same rights they have in the EU under the GDPR. For example, it does not allow private individuals to sue US companies for damages in US courts.

Thank you, I learned something new today.

the other is for the US government to sign a treaty

Just to clarify here: it's not just the act of signing it that makes it US law. The executive branch negotiates and signs a treaty, but the treaty then has to be approved by a 2/3 majority of the Senate in order to become law.

Just wanted to make it clear that there are still checks-and-balances on this process and that it's not a loophole around Congressional approval.

That is an interesting article, but it doesn't answer the question of jurisdiction because it refers to the GDPR itself. I.e. it doesn't answer whether an EU country itself actually has the authority to enforce it on a US citizen. The US could pass a law that says a website operator must eat a dog turd every time anyone, anywhere, a website runs an ad that a US person sees. Say someone in Romania runs a site with ads and the US government wants to enforce this. The law could even state that it applies anywhere in the world, but that doesn't make it so because the US does not have jurisdiction everywhere in the world. The Romanian government will rightly refuse to make their citizen eat the dog turd.

So the spirit of my question is, where is the stick to actually enforce anything on a US entity operating in the US under the GDPR? There is an agreement via an EO. Is there anything else in US law that could be used to enforce this if a US citizen refused an EU country trying to enforce the GDPR in the US? Using the text of it is NA because the EU can only do things that apply to EU countries and their citizens.

For those that aren't familiar with how the US gov functions, an EO is not even remotely close to a treaty, which has the same supremacy as our constitution. All an EO does is tell federal employees or federal executive agencies what to do. Our president could issue an EO telling everyone in the US to wear yellow hats when not in a building and for the FBI to arrest anybody with a yellow hat. Those arrested would have charges dropped the second it reaches the court because such a law does not exist and it is outside the scope of power of the president. EOs can only act within already existing laws.

I've read that, it just says more fines. Say I ignore them, now what?

Nope, not according to the US state department:

https://www.state.gov/treaties-in-force/

I looked, couldn't find it.

The Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework (and subsequent executive orders) protect the EU citizens from misuse of their data by US law enforcement and intelligence communities.

They do not give EU citizens any rights concerning data held only by private companies, apart from the rights all Americans already have.

I think the largest assumption you are making is that the OP does business with the EU. If they do not, they are truly out of the jurisdiction of GDPR and wouldn't be finding themselves on that list. Those fines you are referring to a multinational corps that definitely do a lot of business within the EU.

That agreement concerns use of EU data by the US government itself (ie the intelligence community and law enforcement).

It does not give EU citizens any opportunity to enforce claims against US companies in US courts.