The distrust of large national institutions is, IMO, a result of more than a century (or two!) worth of campaigning by the capital class to try to limit the belief in the virtues of the federal government. I consider the mere existence of this campaign (both overt and covert) to be another piece of evidence that the capital class regard the power of a strong federal government as a threat to their wealth and power. I also find it notable that I never hear anyone arguing for a stronger state government, but not odd because it fits with the general theme: rich people should be left alone to do whatever they want with the assets they control.
I've said many times here on HN that back in the 1960s there was widespread interest in a part of what was then called "operations research" that focused on how to improve the behavior of large human organizations whether they were governments or private. Sadly, that interest faded, and now we just accept private organizational malfunction without saying much, and government organizational malfunction by repeating conservative, "small government" tropes.
Living in the south it's very apparent that a weak federal government was a bad thing. Civil rights have to be mandated top down, history is the proof.
And I believe there is still sufficient party interest and government design to protect "state's rights". Most federal programs are state/municipality implemented. Sure, the feds might stick rules to how money can be used, in order to prevent abuse, but that's a good thing.
So to answer the question of "who deals with the titans" the answer is "the federal government, but they do so because they are beholden to state and local governments/institutions/elites."
I'm not sure I see a path from where we are to making federal representatives more responsible to state institutions (my repeal the 17th amendment campaign never having gained much traction), but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.