I think I get (and agree) with that you're putting down. Maybe this phrasing? :
"It's weird to think that the actions of the few who wield the most - but not the majority - of the power in the US are talked about as if they are the US."
Sometimes, we narrow this down; we say, the X administration. But is that accurate? Does it convey the emotional reality?
Maybe we should say; [Person], acting in their duty as [Role] on behalf of the US, has [action].
But, does this have the inevitable effect of distancing those people from the country that has given them power?
More than half the voting-power of the US voted for Trump, and some portion of that power is then invested in these decisions; at the same time, less than half the voting-power of the US voted for trump, and some portion of that power is then disinvested in those decisions.
It's almost like we need different words to describe the national entity when that entity is democratic than the words we inherited from monarchies.
Maybe we take a page from swarms - perhaps instead of "The US imposed sanctions", we say, "From the US emerged sanctions", or, "Those empowered by the US imposed sanctions". But, none of these use as few words as: "the US did X". Brevity wins.