Whenever there is a door to be kicked down, the governments will kick it down.
That is why in Bitcoin we eliminated the "doors" to be kicked down through decentralization. However, centralization has a way of creeping back in somehow. Whether it is custodial wallets, centralized exchanges or the centralized mining pools.
Whet we need to do is to fight this centralization. We are lucky that the mining pools are slightly spread and they can not all be forced to perform such an "attack" on Bitcoin by censoring transactions, ... at this point. But we eventually have to address this vulnerability.
Even in an extreme scenario where most of the hash rate is pro-censorship, there will still be a few pools which will not censor.
And in such a scenario, the pro-censorship majority can simply ignore any blocks which include transactions they dislike. Any blocks mined by the non-censoring pools can just be re-orged out of the chain at will.
As it turns out, bitcoin is
not censorship resistant. It simply isn't being censored right now.
This is not an issue with Bitcoin (the protocol) itself. It is an issue with how we use the protocol.
It's kind of like using CEX. If you store your coins there and the CEX owner freezes them, that doesn't mean Bitcoin is vulnerable. It means you used Bitcoin wrong.
It's the same with pools. If majority of them end up censoring transactions, that doesn't make Bitcoin not-censorship resisstant. It is our own fault for not creating more pools for miners to join that are located in jurisdictions that anti-privacy governments don't have authority in. It is our own fault for not finding an alternative to the existing mining pool protocols where the owner decides what to include in the block and what not. A protocol that the owner no longer decides what proposal to signal for and what not. Remember SegWit days that we had the same issue where miners wanted the change but pools refused to signal?