no secure boot only enforces you run a trusted kernel not that the kernel enforces access controls and in a full secure boot implementation the user can freely

no secure boot only enforces you run a trusted kernel not that the kernel enforces access controls and in a full secure boot implementation the user can freely choose what _they_ trust and attacks which mess with the boot chain have been a huge problem for a long time for enterprises, TPM likely would have ended up very similar to how it did even if there wouldn't be DRM. Also the DRM lobby has since a long time pushed for moving (parts of) the DRM into the firmware (i.e. in a context where TPM doesn't matter much), which is where vendor-locked secure enclaves and similar come in which are related to TPM2.0 but not the same. For example on some ARM/Android chips part of the DRM system is in a locked secure co-processor. And just because something can be abused doesn't mean it isn't useful or it's fundamentally bad. Through you seem to be making exactly that argument now with a "but it was designed with bad things in mind" added, which is a IMHO pointless argument. What matters is what it _is now_, not why it ended up there. And what it is now is an _essential_ security feature for laptops, which also can be abused iff used in combination with some other features and that other features are tweaked to harm the user (e.g. don't allow custom keys for secure boot).