Well, if that were the case, companies wouldn't insist on NDAs, would they?

I also don't quite understand how you came to the conclusion that NDAs have nothing to do with the fact that any kind of legal dispute in the U.S. costs a lot of money.

Just to be clear: I am fully aware that NDAs can certainly serve a legitimate purpose when it comes to protecting trade secrets, which can of course be necessary and sensible. In practice, however, they are unfortunately all too often used to hide illegitimate activities from the public, as this post here demonstrates quite impressively. It is simply absurd that elected officials can sign an NDA and then, citing it, withhold information from the public about an obvious conflict of interest.