I think it is incorrect to blame this on a currently corrupt president.
Counter-hypothesis: This is a systemic issue. Decisionmakers and shareholders that cause harm face very little consequences if their behavior does not violate the letter of the law.
Compare the leaded gas debacle: US lead industry suppressed knowledge about harmful effects, and even directly targeted researchers with smear-campaigns and lawfare for decades, but faced no real legal consequences once everything came to light.
This sounds bleak, but I'm pretty sure that any improvement (more justice/corporate responsibility) would at least not be free: It would also have chilling effects on research/innovation from perceived legal risk and higher costs (because the customer always pays in the end, which also applies to indirectly legally prescribed risk mitigation).
It is plausible to me that the public is "close to correct" in its current stance, and I would at least not dismiss that notion out of hand!
The public is driven by convenience, and it's extremely convenient to prefer believing purported long-term harms are fake news, when that belief enables enjoying practically every other short-term convenience available to them
Counter-hypothesis: This is a systemic issue. Decisionmakers and shareholders that cause harm face very little consequences if their behavior does not violate the letter of the law.
Compare the leaded gas debacle: US lead industry suppressed knowledge about harmful effects, and even directly targeted researchers with smear-campaigns and lawfare for decades, but faced no real legal consequences once everything came to light.