But the topic here is about maintaining a secure system. You must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every element is either secure or allowed to be owned by your antagonist. Technically no one should have ever trusted something that can not be observed (and it sounds like the people responsible didn't.)
If you chose to trust intel for no good reason, then you must now untrust them given that there is a reason. As a company they would be idiots to introduce such a thing. But if every US company can clearly be threatened with even worse outcomes into going against its own market interests then such an argument does not apply.
As a side note, I do think there was already plenty of evidence that the US was actively forcing companies to do the NSA's bidding. The encryption export laws were largely designed to keep everyone who makes encryption products perpetually afraid of losing all their right to export anything mostly by "governmental discretion" on handling the companies inevitable 'incidents' of support talking to the wrong person about how RSA worked.
Don't marginalize me, bro.