Your indignation at picking on one trial - with massive caveats - is interesting. In case you didn't read the study, patients who were in Oxfordshire UK and had mild enough symptoms to be at home were prescribed inhaled steroids. The study outcome was simply if they sought out urgent care. The data is encouraging for sure, and fits in with the finding that people with COPD (who use budesonide, among other things) appear to be under represented in patients with severe COVID. But the study was cut short by the national lockdown, which prevented the trial from recruiting outside the local region, and as such the study didn't reach the sample size needed for a power analysis. They tried to bootstrap some in silico predictions using a virtual trial with the same study design, but I think that's hard to hang your hat on to. There are a lot of caveats with the study, and even for the approved usage of dexamethasone, a very big steroid gun, the data is mixed and the potential side effects for those with mild cases makes it not so clear cut.
You are of course ignoring all the other agents with emergency use authorization to keep patients alive, like dexamethasone, tocilizumab, remdesivir, the monocolonal antibody therapies (casirivimab, imdevimab, bamlanivimad, etesviumab, sotrovimab). Also all the other thousands of ongoing clinical trials around the world, some of whom like these at the NIH are looking to repurpose drugs to treat COVID.
But you go rage against the CDC and the NIH. Sorry, in this case I guess the University of Oxford and the UK's National Health Research Authority.