Military allies provide a sense of stability.

Unsupported assertion. The past several decades of pointless war empirically suggest otherwise. Hell, WW1 exploded from a minor incident to continent-plus conflict because of alliances and treaties.

Trade Agreements usually have processes to resolve international company disputes and dealings with companies in countries without an agreement can be a costly legal exercise.

That's just an appeal to the status quo. Meanwhile, in the real world, merchants created solutions and processes to resolve such disputes centuries ago. Innumerable disputes are resolved globally even today by arbitration. There is nothing about dispute resolution which requires territorial monopolies in violence, a.k.a governments.

I don't know if the USA develops military alliances specifically for trade or if its developed alliances with major trading partners but a huge number of its top 30 trading partners are also military allies.

The US trades globally and meddles globally. Correlation is not causation either way. The US traded globally before NATO and even before WW1 when neutrality was at least nominally the usual policy, notwithstanding the anti-market and anti-human gunboat diplomacy or Banana Wars.