You could go full air-gapped and get a machine without any network cards. Would still recommend a nice bunker deep inside a mountain just to be on the safe side.
The implication (intentionally or not) being that we can just as well continue to run Chrome on Windows 11 on open WiFis because everything is broken all the time and if not any Three Letter Agency can always kidnap you or someone you care about and get their secrets that way.
Encryption works and massively increases the workload for would be drag net operators!
Having a choice of technology is good and also increases the workload for would be drag net operators.
Competition is good and forces companies to get their act together.
Trashing every good thing that happens because it isn't perfect is demotivating and I'm also absolutely fed up with it.
Every respondent so far assumed you knew this (because it's an unusually high-knowledge question to ask and an unusually obvious answer) and so assumed the actual purpose of your post was to declare that you personally wouldn't use an environment where you can't be sure the SoC isn't doing something nefarious. The people replying don't really find that declaration interesting. Your subsequent reply says that the choice to live with this particular risk is some sort of tacit acceptance, which implies you are not tacitly accepting it.
Since no such environment exists, except for edge case hypotheticals like only powering an air gapped computer inside a faraday cage in a lead bunker, most people expect that you too are tacitly accepting it, which makes this particular complaint feel like a non sequitur and not an invitation to discuss the broader issue.
If you have an actual real life use case about trying to harden a system to this degree, like you are responsible for nuclear safety or the unlock codes for the secret lunar base or something, I am sure people would like to read about it.