That would, of course, be a terrible and illegal abuse of power and essentially be the government policing political speech by private individuals. What an indictment of our government (and I don't mean a single person, but of the system itself) that this seems to be an uncontroversial statement. Because I agree, it's true, and it's the mark of terrible corruption.
That might be overly naive and I agree that there’s great potential for corruption here as well.
It's wholly different to not accept a contract in the first place, but to unilaterally end it for any reason, political or otherwise, is grounds to consider that service provider unreliable.
Not everything has to be political & tribal.
But let's take your example, since you aren't the only one who interpreted it that way. That would be covered by the scope of the government contract being awarded during the normal bidding and contract process. The contract would stipulate the terms by which one party could pull out of the deal. What would be illegal would be for political influence to discourage the awarding of that contract.
The company.
You can support the employees without needing to twist reality. There is no question that ending service on non service related grounds makes a company unpredictability unreliable.
I think there is justified wariness about building too much on top of any service given away for free.