I realize the circumstances of the world have somewhat changed over the past several months, but its not implausible that the US President might travel.
So...I generally agree with the idea that it is more useful to have two terms that mean something distinct than two terms that both mean a fuzzy version of the same thing. In that, despite linguistic history, or the common parlance of whatever time or place, I think "literally" is useful as a concept that should disallow it from use as a term for exaggeration. Because sometimes context does not expose "I am literally going to kill you"'s meaning, and it is useful to know if that's literal or not.
However, I think the situation you might find here is that, if you define "bricked" as a situation which is literally unrepairable, almost nothing is ever bricked. Which similarly makes it a not very useful term. Bricking would be a term exclusive to devices which have been...exposed to an intense EMP, or run through an oven. Situations which, while they may occasionally happen, happen so rarely that no one would ever use the word.