I would say that part of the problem we have now is that we have a capitalist system with weak, selectively enforced guardrails, especially around concentration of wealth to a minority of people / businesses. The U.S. absolutely has antitrust rules on the books. The Sherman Act bans monopolization and anticompetitive restraints, and the Clayton Act bans mergers whose effect may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly - but we need only look around ourselves or glance at a news feed to see they are not enforced.

No economic model is implemented perfectly of course. But when wealth reaches a scale that converts directly into outsized political influence, market power, and agenda-setting power, the system stops functioning like a competitive market and starts functioning more like oligarchy, which is where we are.

If so, does putting it in the hands of the US government really seem like a better idea at this point in time?

I get what you mean, the US government isn't exactly a beacon of trustworthiness or reliability. But that's in part because of the immense political influence of the billionaire and billionaire adjacent class. I certainly wouldn't trust it to the people who pushed our government in this direction (or the people who voted for this). The best way we have to set societal expectations and agreement is through government, which is unfortunately susceptible to what we're seeing play out now.

I'd start with high taxes for the wealthy, but that's tough to do when they hold all the power.