You're taking companies that work almost exclusively for the US government and represent a tiny portion of the US economy as representing all US companies?

This is a weird contextual failure on your part.

Not all companies have a concentration of power. The government has no mutual interest in those companies. Now, when you talk about things in the F100 the situation changes drastically. If you produce things like planes, weapons, and weaponization of software you are talking about something completely different in kind.

Beyond the defense sector, the US state has always intervened publicly and privately to mediate and balance competing corporate "private" interests.

It has also periodically aggressively helped subsidize, bankroll, and enforce the interests of some key sectors; notably the petroleum/energy sector. And finance.

In those sectors the state and private sector are fully intertwined in a strategic way.

I think "AI" is now joining that list. OpenAI and Anthropic will not be allowed to fall over or explode, and speculative investors I think are confident even with the dubious financial situation because they know this.

Especially insofar as there's now a strategic alignment of the fossil fuel sector and the "AI" datacentre sector as they are now becoming massive users of natural gas.

(Worse: Here in Canada that has taken on a very explicit role in that new datacentres seem to be pitched mainly in areas with remarkably traditionally expensive electricity and 100% reliance on natural gas [Alberta] and even coal [Saskatchewan] power generation -- instead of places like Quebec and B.C. that have copious hydroelectricity. On the surface it makes no sense until you realize it's more about finding customers for domestic natural gas than it is strategically about AI itself.)