It would also be compelled speech, and from what I've read,
> governments have the right to mandate corporate speech “if the information in the disclosure is reasonably related to a substantial governmental interest and is purely factual.”
Since that would not be the case here, I do not believe it would be legally defensible for the government to compel false statements out of both Apple and Amazon.
The government could say "look here, this is an actual national security issue" and Apple, Amazon, etc could say "oh shit, you're right - how can we help?"
If this were a real national security risk, what incentive would Apple, Amazon, etc have to tell divulge the truth rather than cooperating with the government? This is vastly different than saying no to a requested NSA backdoor.
Actually, that's not the latest news on that. I looked up that case on scotusblog & it was vacated based on the result of "National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra" which I believe overturns the 9th Circuit's ruling on this although I'm not totally sure. Regardless, you're right. No ruling has held the government has the right to compel factually incorrect speech.
> governments have the right to mandate corporate speech “if the information in the disclosure is reasonably related to a substantial governmental interest and is purely factual.”
(https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-speech/when-the-gover...)
Since that would not be the case here, I do not believe it would be legally defensible for the government to compel false statements out of both Apple and Amazon.
(IANAL, so do take this with a grain of salt)