No, the US legal system generally applies objective theory to contracts. Courts generally recognize what a reasonable person would intend a contract to mean.

Furthermore, courts also generally reject interpretations made in bad faith, which means if one party is "looking for a creative interpretation" to their own benefit, their interpretation is invalid.

And thirdly, ambiguity in a contract is not fair game for one party to interpret something however they want. Courts would evaluate the ambiguity based on whatever the shared purpose of the language being in the contract is.

This isn’t necessarily true, there are a variety of legal doctrines specifically to handle things like this. Take, for example, the major questions doctrine.