I understand your business perspective. "Money has no smell," as they say, and a contract is a contract. To survive in this capitalist world, it seems any means are justified—even providing organizations like ICE or a modern-day Gestapo with encryption tools through paid service contracts.
It’s your right. After all, you say it yourselves in your blog posts: the "bad guys" will always find ways to protect themselves (like cryptochat), but the "good guys" find themselves attacked on all sides by laws that weaken encryption. https://element.io/blog/the-online-safety-bill-an-attack-on-encryption/ So, in your view, it’s honorable to provide governments with the means to protect their communications.
But there is a catch: responsibility. You are, in fact, responsible for allowing governments to hide their intentions by helping them shield themselves from journalistic investigation. It is one thing for these governments to use Matrix to set up their own instances; it is quite another for you to actively help them. This makes you complicit in the atrocities orchestrated by ICE.
Nothing stops you from saying you will no longer participate in the infrastructure of deporting legitimate populations. I would even argue that, from a business standpoint, you would gain more in the long run. You don't know if there will be another "Nuremberg trial" tomorrow or not. For money today, you are taking a massive risk. The damage to your image is enormous. Nothing stops you from saying: "Stop, we have ethics."
Encryption must be universal, but having a contract with the US government or with ICE is something else entirely than simply letting them use the protocol on their own. They can do everything themselves; they can hire people themselves and take the responsibility of being judged themselves for using encryption for negative ends and for perpetuating morally reprehensible attacks. This is where the law of universal access to encryption ends. If you participate, you engage your own morals and your own ethics.