The Atlantic and Pacific oceans and the US nuclear triad mean that there is nothing in those documents that could pose any significant threat to US national security.

The NSA might in fact be occasionally helping to stop relatively small-scale attacks. However, as Prigozhin's march on Moscow in Russia and the 10/7 attacks in Israel show, even running an authoritarian surveillance state or a heavily militarized state with top-notch intelligence services can only do so much to prevent attacks. I think that adding more and more surveillance has diminishing returns in preventing attacks, meanwhile its existence is a threat to free society both directly, in that it could theoretically be used against political dissidents, and indirectly, in that it encourages a culture of self-censorship that is antithetical to political freedom.

If no amount of risk is acceptable, then any amount of surveillance is justified. To have a free society some level of risk must be accepted.