I read the guidance a few times and understood it as meaning non-custodial mixers are not covered. I had not read the statute itself.

I also read through the DoJ argument here, but at minimum does not seem ridiculous. We'll have to see what a judge makes of it (or I guess a jury?).

Also best to improve the law to make it unambiguously privacy friendly ... good luck with that, then we wouldn't need cryptocurrency in the first place.