View source for Trans-Pacific Partnership

{{Short description|2016 proposed trade agreement}}
{{about|the defunct proposed trade agreement|its 12-nation successor|Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2020}}
{{Infobox treaty
| name = Trans-Pacific Partnership
| long_name =
| image =[[File:Leaders of TPP member states.jpg|frameless|upright=1.15]]
| caption =Leaders from 10 of the 12 prospective member states at a TPP summit in 2010
| type = [[Trade agreement]]
| date_drafted ={{start date and age|2015|10|05|df=yes}}<ref name=BBC51015>{{cite news |title=Trans-Pacific free trade deal agreed creating vast partnership |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34444799 |work=[[BBC News]] |date=5 October 2015 |access-date=5 October 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=12 Pacific countries seal huge free trade deal |url= https://news.yahoo.com/12-pacific-countries-seal-huge-free-trade-deal-130306553.html |first=Paul |last=Handley |date=5 October 2015 |agency=AFP |work=Yahoo! News |access-date=7 October 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |newspaper=Financial Times |url=http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d4a31d08-6b4c-11e5-8171-ba1968cf791a.html |title=US and 11 nations seal Pacific trade deal |quote=the TPP must still be signed formally by the leader of each country and ratified by their parliaments}}{{subscription required}}</ref>
| date_signed = {{start date and age|2016|02|04|df=yes}}
| location_signed = [[Auckland]], [[New Zealand]]
| date_sealed =
| date_effective = Not in force
| condition_effective = Ratification by all original signatories, or (2 years after signature) ratification by at least 6 states corresponding to 85% of GDP of original signatories<ref name=Diplomat>{{cite news | newspaper=The Diplomat |url=https://thediplomat.com/2015/10/heres-what-needs-to-happen-in-order-for-the-trans-pacific-partnership-to-become-binding/ |title=Here's What Needs to Happen in Order for the Trans-Pacific Partnership to Become Binding}}</ref>
| signatories =
* 11
* {{flag|Australia}}
* {{flag|Brunei}}
* {{flag|Canada}}
* {{flag|Chile}}
* {{flag|Japan}}
* {{flag|Malaysia}}
* {{flag|Mexico}}
* {{flag|New Zealand}}
* {{flag|Peru}}
* {{flag|Singapore}}
* {{flag|Vietnam}}
| parties =
| ratifiers =
* 2
* {{flag|Japan}}
* {{flag|New Zealand}}
| depositor =New Zealand
| languages = [[English language|English]] (prevailing in the case of conflict or divergence), [[Spanish language|Spanish]], [[Vietnamese language|Vietnamese]], [[Japanese language|Japanese]], [[French language|French]]
| wikisource =Trans-Pacific Partnership
| date_expiration =
}}

The '''Trans-Pacific Partnership''' ('''TPP'''), or '''Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement''' ('''TPPA'''), was a proposed [[trade agreement]] between 12 [[Pacific Rim]] countries: [[Australia]], [[Brunei]], [[Canada]], [[Chile]], [[Japan]], [[Malaysia]], [[Mexico]], [[New Zealand]], [[Peru]], [[Singapore]], [[Vietnam]] and the [[United States]]. In the US, the proposal was signed on 4 February 2016 but not ratified as a result of significant domestic political opposition; both [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Donald Trump]] opposed the agreement during their 2016 presidential campaigns, however Hillary Clinton was originally in support.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Tapper |first=Jake |date=2015-06-15 |title=45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/index.html |access-date=2025-05-22 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Kullgren |first=Ian |date=2016-10-09 |title=Yes, Clinton did call TPP the 'gold standard' |url=https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/10/yes-clinton-did-call-tpp-the-gold-standard-229501 |access-date=2025-05-22 |website=POLITICO |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Fact Check: Clinton did call TPP ‘the gold standard’ |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/fact-check-clinton-dod-call-tpp-the-gold-standard/ |access-date=2025-05-22 |website=Washington Post |language=en}}</ref> After taking office, President Trump formally withdrew the United States from the TPP in January 2017,<ref>{{cite web |author=Trump, Donald J. |date=25 January 2017 |title=Withdrawal of the United States From the Trans- Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement |url=https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/25/2017-01845/withdrawal-of-the-united-states-from-the-trans--pacific-partnership-negotiations-and-agreement |publisher=[[Federal Register]]}}</ref> ensuring it could not be ratified as required and did not enter into force. The remaining countries negotiated a new trade agreement called the [[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership]] (CPTPP),<ref>{{Cite news |last=Ming |first=Cheang |date=9 March 2018 |title=Global trade just had a 'one step forward, one step back' day |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/09/tpp-11-countries-sign-trade-agreement-as-trump-implements-tariffs.html |access-date=10 March 2018 |work=[[CNBC]]}}</ref> which incorporated most of the provisions of its successor and entered into force on 30 December 2018.

The TPP began as an expansion of the [[Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement]] (TPSEP or P4), signed by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore in 2005. Beginning in 2008, eight additional countries joined negotiations to broaden the agreement, eventually forming the 12-member TPP. Following the US's withdrawal, the remaining countries decided in May 2017 to revive the TPP,<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/20/tpp-nations-agree-to-pursue-trade-deal-without-us.html |title=TPP nations agree to pursue trade deal without US |last=Shaffer |first=Sri Jegarajah, Craig Dale, Leslie |date=21 May 2017 |work=[[CNBC]] |access-date=21 May 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/saving-the-trans-pacific-partnership-what-are-the-tpps-prospects-after-the-us |title=Saving the Trans-Pacific Partnership: What are the TPP's prospects after the US withdrawal? |last=hermesauto |date=21 May 2017 |work=The Straits Times |access-date=21 May 2017}}</ref> reaching a revised agreement, the CPTPP, in January 2018 and signing it in March 2018. The new agreement came into effect for those countries in December that year after ratification by six of them (Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Singapore).

The original TPP contained measures to lower both [[Non-tariff barriers to trade|non-tariff]] and tariff [[Trade barriers|barriers to trade]],<ref name="GuardianAU2">{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/06/australia-and-the-trans-pacific-partnership-what-we-do-and-dont-know |title=Australia and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: what we do and don't know |date=6 October 2015 |work=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref> and establish an [[investor-state dispute settlement]] (ISDS) mechanism.<ref name="ustr100620152">{{cite web |url=https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2015/october/summary-trans-pacific-partnership |title=Summary of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement |date=4 October 2015 |publisher=USTR |access-date=16 October 2015}}</ref> The [[United States International Trade Commission|U.S. International Trade Commission]],<ref name=":2">{{cite web |url=https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607.pdf |title=Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Likely Impact on the U.S. Economy and on Specific Industry Sectors |publisher=United States International Trade Commission }}</ref> the [[Peterson Institute for International Economics]], the [[World Bank]] and the Office of the Chief Economist at [[Global Affairs Canada]] stated that the final agreement, if ratified, would have led to net positive economic outcomes for all signatories.{{refn|group="Note"|<ref name=":110">{{cite web |url=http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/GEP/GEP2016a/Global-Economic-Prospects-January-2016-Implications-Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Agreement.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160212030617/http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/GEP/GEP2016a/Global-Economic-Prospects-January-2016-Implications-Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Agreement.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=12 February 2016 |title=Potential Macroeconomic Implications of the Trans-Pacific Partnership |publisher=World Bank  }}</ref><ref name=":122">{{cite news |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-why-the-trans-pacific-partnership-isnt-a-bum-deal |title=Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership isn't a bum deal |date=5 February 2016 |publisher=[[PBS]] |last1=Hufbauer |first1=Gary Clyde |access-date=7 February 2016}}</ref><ref name=":32">{{cite news |url=http://globalnews.ca/news/2931351/trans-pacific-partnership-would-boost-gdp-by-4-3-billion-study/ |title=Trans-Pacific Partnership would boost GDP by $4.3 billion: study |author=Staff writers |access-date=10 September 2016}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{cite web |url=https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/tpp-debate-economic-benefits-by-dani-rodrik-2016-02?barrier=true |title=The Trade Numbers Game |last=Rodrik |first=Dani |date=10 February 2016 |website=Project Syndicate |access-date=22 May 2016}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{cite web |url=https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/studies-tpp-which-credible |title=Studies of TPP: Which Is Credible? {{!}} PIIE |website=piie.com |access-date=22 May 2016|date=30 January 2016 }}</ref><ref name=":30">{{cite web |url=http://ecipe.org/publications/splendid-isolation-capaldo-study-ttip/ |title="Splendid Isolation" as Trade Policy: Mercantilism and Crude Keynesianism in "the Capaldo Study" of TTIP - ECIPE |access-date=10 August 2016}}</ref><ref name=":8">{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44278.pdf |title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): In Brief |publisher=Congressional Research Service }}</ref><ref name="auto1">{{cite web |url=http://voxeu.org/article/tpp-structural-reform-let-s-evaluate-it-structural-models |title=TPP is a structural reform: Let's evaluate it with structural models |website=VoxEU.org |access-date=3 July 2016|date=3 July 2016 }}</ref>}} Many observers at the time said the trade deal would also have served a geopolitical purpose, reducing the signatories' dependence on Chinese trade and bring them closer to the United States.<ref name=":9" /><ref name=":6" /><ref name=":7" /><ref name=":26" />

== Membership ==
[[File:Trans-Pacific Partnership status.svg|thumb|{{legend|green|Parties}}
{{legend|lightgreen|Signatories}}
{{legend|red|Withdrawn signatory}}]]
Twelve countries participated in negotiations for the TPP: the four parties to the 2005 [[Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement]] and eight additional countries. All twelve signed the TPP on 4 February 2016.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/business-35480600|title=Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal signed in Auckland|newspaper=BBC News|date=4 February 2016}}</ref> The agreement would have entered into force after ratification by all signatories, if this had occurred within two years. If the agreement had not been ratified by all before 4 February 2018, it would have entered into force after ratification by at least 6 states which together have a GDP of more than 85% of the GDP of all signatories. The withdrawal of the United States from the agreement in January 2017 effectively ended any prospect of the agreement entering into force. In response the remaining parties successfully negotiated a new version of the agreement that lacked the 85% GDP threshold, the [[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership|CPTPP]], which entered into force in December 2018.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Country
! Status in [[Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement|2005 TPSEP agreement]]
! Start of TPP<br />Negotiations
! Signature of TPP
! Ratification of TPP

|-
| {{flag|Singapore}}
| Party (28 May 2006)
| {{dts|February 2008}}
| {{dts|4 February 2016}}
| {{N/A}} 
|-
| {{flag|Brunei}}
| Party (28 May 2006)
| {{dts|February 2008}}
| {{dts|4 February 2016}}
| {{N/A}}

|-
| {{flag|New Zealand}}
| Party (12 July 2006)
| {{dts|February 2008}}
| {{dts|4 February 2016}}
| {{dts|11 May 2017}}

|-
| {{flag|Chile}}
| Party (8 November 2006)
| {{dts|February 2008}}
| {{dts|4 February 2016}}
|{{N/A}}
|-
| {{flag|Australia}}
| Non-party
| {{dts|November 2008}}
| {{dts|4 February 2016}}
|{{N/A}}

|-
| {{flag|Peru}}
| Non-party
| {{dts|November 2008}}
| {{dts|4 February 2016}}
|{{N/A}}

|-
| {{flag|Vietnam}}
| Non-party
| {{dts|November 2008}}
| {{dts|4 February 2016}}
|{{N/A}}

|-
| {{flag|Malaysia}}
| Non-party
| {{dts|October 2010}}
| {{dts|4 February 2016}}
|{{N/A}}

|-
| {{flag|Mexico}}
| Non-Party
| {{dts|October 2012}}
| {{dts|4 February 2016}}
|{{N/A}}
|-
| {{flag|Canada}}<ref>{{cite press release |quote=Canada formally joined the TPP on October 8, 2012. |url=http://www.international.gc.ca/media_commerce/comm/news-communiques/2012/12/03a.aspx?lang=eng&view=d |title=Canada Joins Trans-Pacific Partnership Round |date=3 December 2012 |access-date=13 December 2012 |publisher=Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada}}</ref>
| Non-party
| {{dts|October 2012}}
| {{dts|4 February 2016}}
|{{N/A}}
|-
| {{flag|Japan}}
| Non-party
| {{dts|May 2013}}
| {{dts|4 February 2016}}
| {{dts|20 January 2017}}
|}

===Withdrawn member===
On 23 January 2017, US President [[Donald Trump]] signed a [[presidential memorandum]] to [[s:Regarding Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement|withdraw the United States' signature from the agreement]], making its ratification as it was in February 2016 virtually impossible.<ref>{{cite news |last=Diamond |first=Jeremy |last2=Bash |first2=Dana |date=23 January 2017 |title=Trump signs order withdrawing from TPP, reinstate 'Mexico City policy' on abortion |url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-withdrawal-trumps-first-executive-action-monday-sources-say/ |work=CNN |publisher=}}</ref>
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Country
! Status [[Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement|2005 TPSEP agreement]]
! Start of TPP<br />Negotiations
! Signature of TPP
!Withdrawn
|-
| {{flag|United States}}
| Non-party
| {{dts|February 2008}}
| {{dts|4 February 2016}}
|23 January 2017<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38721056|title=Trump executive order pulls out of TPP trade deal|date=23 January 2017|newspaper=BBC News|language=en-GB|access-date=23 January 2017}}</ref>
|-
|}

On 13 April 2018, Trump said the United States may rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43747211|title=Trump to reconsider TPP trade pact|date=13 April 2018|work=BBC News}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Thomas |first=Ken |last2=Freking |first2=Kevin |date=2018-04-13 |title=Trump flips on trade pact, weighs rejoining Pacific-Rim deal |url=https://apnews.com/article/94f22345d9324092bd5ddab5adce715a |access-date=2025-01-24 |website=AP News |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=13 April 2018 |title=Australian farmers shocked but cautious about news Trump wants 'another look' at the TPP |url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-13/donald-trump-reportedly-exploring-rejoining-tpp-trade-deal-talks/9652202 |website=ABC}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Pramuk |first=Jacob |date=13 April 2018 |title='A ridiculous reversal': Top Democrats who sided with Trump on trade slam TPP move |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/13/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-slam-trumps-move-on-tpp-trade-deal.html |website=CNBC}}</ref>

===Comparison of initial signatories to the agreement===

{| class="wikitable sortable"

|-

! style="width:10%;" |
! style="width:45%;" | {{flag|Australia}}
! style="width:45%;" | {{flag|Brunei}}
! style="width:45%;" | {{flag|Canada}}
! style="width:45%;" | {{flag|Chile}}
! style="width:45%;" | {{flag|Japan}}
! style="width:45%;" | {{flag|Malaysia}}
! style="width:45%;" | {{flag|Mexico}}
! style="width:45%;" | {{flag|New Zealand}}
! style="width:45%;" | {{flag|Peru}}
! style="width:45%;" | {{flag|Singapore}}
! style="width:45%;" | {{flag|United States}}
! style="width:45%;" | {{flag|Vietnam}}

|-

| '''GDP (PPP)'''
| $1.415&nbsp;Trillion (2021)<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2021/April/weo-report |title=Report for Selected Countries and Subjects |website=[[International Monetary Fund]] (IMF)}}</ref>	
|
|
|
|
|$1.216 trillion
(2024)
|
|
|
|
| USD$22.675&nbsp;trillion (2021)
|
|-

| '''GDP (Nominal)'''
| AUD$1.617&nbsp;Trillion (2021)<ref name="auto">{{cite web |url=https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2021/April/weo-report?c=512,914,612,614,311,213,911,314,193,122,912,313,419,513,316,913,124,339,638,514,218,963,616,223,516,918,748,618,624,522,622,156,626,628,228,924,233,632,636,634,238,662,960,423,935,128,611,321,243,248,469,253,642,643,939,734,644,819,172,132,646,648,915,134,652,174,328,258,656,654,336,263,268,532,944,176,534,536,429,433,178,436,136,343,158,439,916,664,826,542,967,443,917,544,941,446,666,668,672,946,137,546,674,676,548,556,678,181,867,682,684,273,868,921,948,943,686,688,518,728,836,558,138,196,278,692,694,962,142,449,564,565,283,853,288,293,566,964,182,359,453,968,922,714,862,135,716,456,722,942,718,724,576,936,961,813,726,199,733,184,524,361,362,364,732,366,144,146,463,528,923,738,578,537,742,866,369,744,186,925,869,746,926,466,112,111,298,927,846,299,582,487,474,754,698,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2010&ey=2021&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=1&sort=subject&ds=.&br=1 |title=Report for Selected Countries and Subjects. Download World Economic Outlook database: April 2021 |date= |website=[[International Monetary Fund]] (IMF)}}</ref>
|$15.13 Billion (2023)
|$2.14 Trillion (2023)
|$335.53 billion (2023)<ref name=":20">{{Cite web |title=World Bank Open Data |url=https://data.worldbank.org/country/chile |access-date=2025-05-24 |website=World Bank Open Data}}</ref>
|$4.2 Trillion (2023)
|$399.71 billion (2023)<ref name=":36">{{Cite web |title=World Bank Open Data |url=https://data.worldbank.org/country/malaysia |access-date=2025-05-24 |website=World Bank Open Data}}</ref>
| $1.297.7 Trillion (2021)
|$252.18 Billion (2023)
|$267.6 Billion (2023)
|$501.43 Billion (2023)
| USD$22.775&nbsp;trillion (2021)
|$429.72 Billion (2023)
|-

|'''GDP per capita'''
| $54,891 (2021)<ref name="auto"/>
|$34,970 (2025)
|$53,431.2 (2023)
|$17,067.8 (2023)<ref name=":20" />
|$33,766.5 (2023)
|$11,379.1
(2023)<ref name=":36" />
|$11,945
(2024)
| $48,280.8 (2023) 
|$7,906.6 (2023)
|$84,734.3 (2023)
|$67,426 (2020)
|$4,282.1 (2023)
|-

| '''Population'''
| 23,401,892 (2016)<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/036|title=2016 Census QuickStats: Australia|website=quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au}}</ref>
| 445,373 (2021)
| 36,991,981 (2021)
| 17,574,003 (2017)
| 126,226,568 (2020)
| 34,100,000 (2024)
| 129,150,971 (2020)
| 5,269,939 (2024)
| 31,237,285 (2017)
| 5,453,600 (2021)
| 328,239,523 (2019)
| 98,506,193 (2021)
|-

| '''Area'''
| {{convert|7692024|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|5765|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|9984670|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|756096|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|377975.24|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|330803|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|1972550|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|268000|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|1285126|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|710|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|9826630|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|331210|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}}
|-

| '''Population density'''
| 3.4/km<sup>2</sup> (8.8/sq mi)
|
|
|
|
|101/km² (261.6/sq mi)
|
| 19.69/km<sup>2</sup> (~51/sq mi)
|
|
| 35/km<sup>2</sup> (90.6/sq mi)
|
|-

| '''Capital'''
| [[Canberra]], [[Australian Capital Territory|ACT]]
| rowspan = "2" | [[Bandar Seri Begawan]]
| [[Ottawa]]
| rowspan = "2" | [[Santiago]]
| rowspan = "2" | [[Tokyo]]
| rowspan = "2" | [[Kuala Lumpur]]
| rowspan = "2" | [[Mexico City]]
| [[Wellington]]
| rowspan = "2" | [[Lima]]
| rowspan = "2" | [[Singapore]]
| [[Washington, D.C.]]
| [[Hanoi]]
|-

|'''Largest city'''
| [[Sydney]]

| [[Toronto]]

| [[Auckland]]

| [[New York City]]
| [[Ho Chi Minh City]]
|-

| '''Government'''
| [[Federation|Federal]] [[Parliamentary system|parliamentary]] [[constitutional monarchy]]
| [[Unitary state|Unitary]] [[absolute monarchy]]
| [[Federation|Federal]] [[Parliamentary system|parliamentary]] [[constitutional monarchy]]
| [[Unitary state|Unitary]] [[Presidential system|presidential]] [[republic]]
| [[Unitary state|Unitary]] [[Parliamentary system|parliamentary]] [[constitutional monarchy]]
| [[Federation|Federal]] [[Parliamentary system|parliamentary]] [[constitutional monarchy]]
| [[Federation|Federal]] [[Presidential system|presidential]] [[republic]]
| [[Unitary state|Unitary]] [[Parliamentary system|parliamentary]] [[constitutional monarchy]]
| [[Unitary state|Unitary]] [[Presidential system|presidential]] [[republic]]
| [[Unitary state|Unitary]] [[Parliamentary system|parliamentary]] [[republic]]
| [[Federation|Federal]] [[Presidential system|presidential]] [[republic]]
| [[Unitary state|Unitary]] [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxist–Leninist]] [[One-party state|one-party]] [[Socialist state|socialist]] [[republic]]
|-

| '''Current Leader'''
| Prime Minister [[Anthony Albanese]]
| Sultan and Prime Minister [[Hassanal Bolkiah]]
| Prime Minister [[Mark Carney]]
| President [[Gabriel Boric]]
| Prime Minister [[Shigeru Ishiba]]
| Prime Minister [[Anwar Ibrahim]]
| President [[Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo]]
| Prime Minister [[Christopher Luxon]]
| President [[Dina Boluarte]]
| Prime Minister [[Lawrence Wong]]
| President [[Donald Trump]]
| President [[Lương Cường]]
|-

| '''Current Vice Leader'''
| Deputy Prime Minister [[Richard Marles]]
| Crown Prince and Deputy Minister [[Al-Muhtadee Billah]]
| 
|
|
|Deputy Prime Minister
[[Ahmad Zahid Hamidi|Zahid Hamidi]]
|
| Deputy Prime Minister [[Winston Peters]]
|
| Deputy Prime Minister [[Heng Swee Keat]]
| Vice President [[JD Vance]]
|
|-

| '''Legislature'''
| [[Parliament of Australia|Parliament]]
| [[Legislative Council of Brunei|Legislative Council]]
| [[Parliament of Canada|Parliament]]
| [[National Congress of Chile]]
| [[National Diet]]
| [[Parliament of Malaysia|Parliament]]
| [[Congress of the Union]]
| [[New Zealand Parliament|Parliament]]
| [[Congress of the Republic of Peru|Congress of the Republic]]
| [[Parliament of Singapore|Parliament]]
| [[United States Congress|Congress]]
| [[National Assembly (Vietnam)|National Assembly]]
|-

| '''Official languages'''
| [[Australian English|English]] (''de facto'' only)
| [[Malay language|Malay]]
| [[Canadian English|English]], [[Canadian French|French]]
| [[Chilean Spanish|Spanish]]
| [[Japanese language|Japanese]] (''de facto'' only)
| [[Malaysian Malay|Malay]]
| [[Mexican Spanish|Spanish]] (''de facto'' only)
| [[New Zealand English|English]] (''de facto'' only)
| [[Peruvian Spanish|Spanish]]
| [[Singapore English|English]], [[Malay language|Malay]], [[Singaporean Mandarin|Mandarin Chinese]], [[Tamil language|Tamil]]
| [[American English|English]] (''de facto'' only)
| [[Vietnamese language|Vietnamese]] (''de facto'' only)
|-

|}

=== Potential members ===
[[APEC]] members would have been able to accede to the TPP, as would any other jurisdiction to which existing TPP members would have agreed. After an application for membership is received, a commission of parties to the treaty would negotiate conditions for accession.

South Korea did not participate in the 2006 agreement, but showed interest in entering the TPP,<ref>{{cite news |last=Nishikawa |first=Yoko |title=South Korea mulling U.S.-led TPP trade initiative: report |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AD05L20101114 |publisher=Reuters |date=13 November 2010 |access-date=15 November 2010}}</ref> and was invited to the TPP negotiating rounds in December 2010 by the U.S. after the successful conclusion of its [[Free trade agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of Korea]].<ref>{{cite web |title=US requests Korea's joining of regional FTA |url=http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=020000&biid=2010121816208 |publisher=The Donga-A Ilbo |date=18 December 2010}}</ref> South Korea already had bilateral trade agreements with some TPP members, but areas such as vehicle manufacturing and agriculture still needed to be agreed upon, making further multilateral TPP negotiations somewhat complicated.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/605796.html|title=Seoul appears set to join Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations|newspaper=[[The Hankyoreh]]|date=4 October 2013|access-date=6 October 2013}}</ref>

Other countries that were interested in TPP membership include Taiwan,<ref>{{cite web| url=http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_Detail.aspx?Type=aALL&ID=201011100039|title=Taiwan aims to join Trans-Pacific Partnership: minister |date=10 November 2010|access-date=13 November 2010}}</ref> the Philippines,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2010/09/24/speech-of-president-aquino-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations-new-york-city/|title=Speech of President Aquino at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York City |date=23 September 2010 |access-date=2 November 2010}}</ref> [[Colombia]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://tppdigest.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=145:colombia-hopes-to-join-tpp-negotiations&catid=1:latest-news |title=Colombia Hopes To Join TPP Negotiations |date=19 March 2010 |access-date=22 January 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131215104815/http://tppdigest.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=145:colombia-hopes-to-join-tpp-negotiations&catid=1:latest-news|archive-date=15 December 2013}}</ref> and Hong Kong<ref>{{cite press release |url=https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201011/14/P201011140129.htm |title=CE advocates free trade |access-date=2024-08-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=17568 |title=Donald Tsang proposed to the United States to grant visa-free access to SAR passports |access-date=2024-08-20}}</ref><ref>https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201111/14/P201111140252.htm https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201111/14/P201111140254.htm</ref> as of 2010; [[Thailand]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/thailands-quest-join-tppa-will-strengthen-opposition/5/141000 |title=Thailand's quest to join the TPPA 'will strengthen opposition' |access-date=4 February 2013}}</ref> as of 2012; and [[Indonesia]],<ref>{{cite news |title=US-ASEAN businessmen lobby Indonesia on TPP |url=http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/06/25/us-asean-businessmen-lobby-indonesia-tpp.html |newspaper=The Jakarta Post |date=25 June 2013}}</ref> [[Bangladesh]],<ref name=Dhaka>{{cite news |last=Sobhan |first=Md Abus |title=Trans Pacific Partnership the way forward | url=http://www.dhakatribune.com/op-ed/2013/sep/15/trans-pacific-partnership-way-forward| access-date=19 September 2013|newspaper=Dhaka Tribune|date=15 September 2013}}</ref> and [[India]]<ref name=India>{{cite news |last=Kumar |first=Arun |title='India's admission to TPP would be an economic coup' |url=http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/india-s-admission-to-tpp-would-be-an-economic-coup-113080200419_1.html |access-date=19 September 2013 |newspaper=Business Standard |date=2 August 2013}}</ref> as of 2013. According to law professor Edmund Sim in 2013, many of these countries would need to change their [[protectionist]] trade policies in order to join the TPP.<ref name=hookway>{{cite news |last1=Hookway |first1=James |last2=Brereton-Fukui |first2=Natasha |title=Trade Is Also Key to Influence in East Asia |url=https://blogs.wsj.com/indonesiarealtime/2013/06/28/trade-is-also-key-to-influence-in-east-asia/ |access-date=14 May 2015 |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |date=28 June 2013}}</ref>

The largest economy in the [[Pacific Rim]] not involved in the negotiations was [[China]]. According to the [[Brookings Institution]] in 2013, the most fundamental challenge for the TPP project regarding China was that "it may not constitute a powerful enough enticement to propel China to sign on to these new standards on trade and investment. China reacted by accelerating its own trade initiatives in Asia."<ref>{{cite web|last1=Mireya|first1=Solis|title=The Containment Fallacy: China and the TPP|url=http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/05/24-china-transpacific-partnership-solis|website=Brookings Institution|access-date=26 June 2014|date=30 November 2001}}</ref> In 2013, it was thought China might still be interested in joining the TPP eventually.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Needham|first1=Vicki|title=China's interest grows in joining an Asia-Pacific trade deal|url=http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005-trade/322789-chinas-interest-grows-in-joining-an-asia-pacific-trade-deal|work=TheHill.com|date=17 September 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130920192532/http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005-trade/322789-chinas-interest-grows-in-joining-an-asia-pacific-trade-deal|archive-date=20 September 2013}}</ref>  An academic analysis has shown that while the TPP would be more successful if China participated in it, the benefits to China are intangible.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Devadason|first1=Evelyn S.|title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): the Chinese perspective|journal=[[Journal of Contemporary China]]|date=17 January 2014|volume=23|issue=87|pages=462–479|doi=10.1080/10670564.2013.843890|s2cid=216141799}}</ref>

In October 2015, Indonesian President [[Joko Widodo]] declared Indonesia's intention to join the TPP.<ref name="Indonesia">
{{cite news
|author= Agence France-Presse in Washington
|url= https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/27/indonesia-will-join-trans-pacific-partnership-jokowi-tells-obama
|title= Indonesia will join Trans-Pacific Partnership, Jokowi tells Obama &#124; World news
|newspaper= The Guardian |date= 27 October 2015 |access-date= 18 November 2015
}}
</ref>

{{As of|2016}}, [[Sri Lanka]] announced its interest in joining the TPP and studied its feasibility.<ref>{{Cite news
| url = http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/colombo-contemplating-joining-transpacific-partnership-samaraweera/article8285976.ece
| title = Colombo contemplating joining Trans-Pacific Partnership: Samaraweera
| date = 26 February 2016
| newspaper = The Hindu
| language = en-IN
| issn = 0971-751X
| access-date = 27 February 2016
}}</ref><ref name="Sri Lanka">{{cite web
| url = http://www.dailynews.lk/?q=2015/11/16/business/govt-pushing-gsp-tpp-membership-dr-harsha
| title = Govt pushing for GSP+, TPP membership - Dr. Harsha {{!}} Daily News
| work = dailynews.lk
| access-date = 27 February 2016
}}</ref>

Likewise, {{as of|2016|lc=y}} [[Cambodia]] announced its interest in joining the TPP and is studied its feasibility.<ref name="Cambodia">{{cite web
| url = https://m.phnompenhpost.com/business/cambodia-urged-join-tpp
| title = Cambodia urged to join TPP {{!}} The Phnom Penh Post
| last = Kotoski
| first = Kali
| work = The Phnom Penh Post 
| date = 10 May 2016
| access-date = 9 August 2022}}</ref>

In February 2021, the United Kingdom applied for membership of the [[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership|CPTPP]], the successor to the TPP.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-02-01|title=Formal Request to Commence UK Accession Negotiations to CPTPP|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/formal-request-to-commence-uk-accession-negotiations-to-cptpp|access-date=2021-07-21|website=GOV.UK|language=en}}</ref>

In September 2021, China applied for membership of the [[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership|CPTPP]].<ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-09-17|title=China applies to join Pacific trade pact to boost economic clout|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-officially-applies-join-cptpp-trade-pact-2021-09-16/|access-date=2021-09-17|website=Reuters|language=en}}</ref> Japan, the 2021 chair of the CPTPP, said that it would consult with member countries to respond to China's request.

In July 2023, as CPTPP members formally accepted the United Kingdom as the 12th member, Australia indicated that China has no hope of being accepted in the near term.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hurst |first=Daniel |date=2023-07-14 |title=No chance China will join Pacific trade pact in near term, Australia warns |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/15/no-chance-china-will-join-pacific-trade-pact-in-near-term-australia-warns |access-date=2023-10-26 |issn=0261-3077}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Country
! Status [[Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement|2005 agreement]]
! Status TPP
! Announced Interest
|-
| {{flag|Colombia}}
| Non-party
| Announced Interest
| {{dts|January 2010}}
|-
| {{flag|Philippines}}
| Non-party
| Announced Interest
| {{dts|September 2010}}
|-
| {{flag|Thailand}}
| Non-party
| Announced Interest
| {{dts|November 2012}}
|-
| {{flag|Taiwan}}
| Non-party
| Announced Interest
| {{dts|September 2013}}
|-
| {{flag|South Korea}}
| Non-party
| Announced Interest
| {{dts|November 2013}}
|-
| {{flag|Indonesia}}
| Non-party
| Declared Intent to Join<ref name="Indonesia" />
| {{dts|October 2015}}
|-
| {{flag|Sri Lanka}}
| Non-party
| Announced Interest<ref name="Sri Lanka"/>
| {{dts|November 2015}}
|-
| {{flag|Cambodia}}
| Non-party
| Announced Interest<ref name="Cambodia"/>
| {{dts|January 2016}}
|}

== History ==
=== Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement ===
{{main|Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement}}

Brunei, Chile, Singapore and New Zealand are parties to the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP), which was signed in 2005, and entered into force in 2006. The original TPSEP agreement contains an accession clause and affirms the members' "commitment to encourage the accession to this Agreement by other economies".<ref name="mfat.govt.nz">{{cite web|url=http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/2-Trade-Relationships-and-Agreements/Trans-Pacific/0-history.php|title=History of the Trans-Pacific SEP Agreement P4|work=mfat.govt.nz|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130210151458/http://mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/2-Trade-Relationships-and-Agreements/Trans-Pacific/0-history.php|archive-date=10 February 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/main-agreement.pdf |title=TRANS-PACIFIC STRATEGIC ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT |work=mfat.govt.nz |access-date=5 October 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150514005708/http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/main-agreement.pdf |archive-date=14 May 2015  }}</ref> It is a comprehensive agreement, affecting trade in goods, rules of origin, trade remedies, [[Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures|sanitary and phytosanitary measures]], technical barriers to trade, trade in services, intellectual property, government procurement and competition policy. Among other things, it called for a 90-percent reduction of all [[tariff]]s between member countries by 1 January 2006, and reduction of all trade tariffs to zero by the year 2015.<ref name="TPP2005">{{cite web|url= http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/main-agreement.pdf|title= Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement|publisher= NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade|year= 2005 |access-date= 28 January 2012|url-status= dead|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150514005708/http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/main-agreement.pdf|archive-date= 14 May 2015|df= dmy-all}}</ref>

Although original and negotiating parties are members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), TPSEP is not an APEC initiative. However, the TPP is considered{{by whom|date=April 2019}} to be a pathfinder for the proposed [[Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific]] (FTAAP), an APEC initiative.

=== Original negotiations ===
{{main|Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations}}

In January 2008, the U.S. entered talks with the Pacific 4 (P4) members regarding [[trade liberalisation]] in financial services.<ref name="NZH">{{cite news| url= http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10491556|title= First step to wider free trade|work= The New Zealand Herald |access-date= 9 February 2008|first= Chris|last= Daniels|date= 10 February 2008}}</ref> This led to 19 formal negotiation rounds and a subsequent series of additional meetings, such as Chief Negotiators Meetings and Ministers Meetings, and resulted in the agreement announced on 5 October 2015.

=== Ratification of the original agreement ===
Japan and New Zealand ratified the original agreement.

Japan and its main competitor in the region, China, hold polar views on how South-East Asia's economy should develop.{{Citation needed|reason= What is meant by this?|date= July 2020}} Prior to TPP, Japan tried to achieve dominance by proposing in September 1997 an [[Asian Monetary Fund]] (AMF), which never eventuated in the face of U.S. opposition.  By 2011 Japan managed to establish a cooperative agreement with China and Korea called the "PRC–Japan–Republic of Korea Free trade agreement", also known as the CJK FTA, which did not include the U.S.  By this means Japan intended to use the People's Republic of China card in order to shift TPP negotiations away from China towards Japan's agendas with support of the United States.<ref name="ADB working paper series on regional economic integration">{{cite web|url= https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/152753/reiwp-146.pdf|title= Trans-Pacific Partnership versus Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership: Control of Membership and Agenda setting|author= Shintaro Hamanaka|date= January 2014}}</ref> Ratification of the TPP in Japan required political reforms that shifted some authority from the agriculture ministry to the prime minister.<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Ishiguro |first1= Kaoru |title= TPP negotiations and political economy reforms in Japan's executive policy making: a two-level game analysis |journal= International Relations of the Asia-Pacific |date= 20 June 2016 |volume= 17 |issue= 2 |pages= 171–201 |doi= 10.1093/irap/lcw010}}</ref>
On 9 December 2016 Japan's [[House of Councillors (Japan)|House of Councillors]] made a  [[resolution (law)|resolution]] of participation. Japan notified completion of domestic procedures for ratification to the [[depositary]] of the TPP treaty (New Zealand) as the first ratified country on 20 January 2017.<ref>{{Cite web|url= http://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press4e_001443.html|title= Notification of Completion of Domestic Procedures for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement|access-date= 22 January 2017|date= 20 January 2017|publisher = [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Japan)]]}}</ref>

New Zealand ratified the TPP on 11 May 2017.<ref>{{Cite web|url= http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/92466121/government-ratifies-tpp-as-bill-english-heads-to-japan-for-trade-talks|title= Government ratifies TPP as Bill English heads to Japan for trade talks|website= Stuff|date= 11 May 2017|access-date= 11 May 2017}}</ref> New Zealand Prime Minister [[Jacinda Ardern]] (in office from October 2017) planned to renegotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement in [[APEC Vietnam 2017|Vietnam]] in November 2017 in time to allow the New Zealand government to ban foreign speculators from buying existing New Zealand homes. She said: "Our view is that it will be possible to balance our desire to make sure that we provide housing that's affordable, by easing demand and banning foreign speculators from buying existing homes, while meeting our trade goals."<ref>
{{Cite web
 |url= http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/342124/ardern-to-push-for-tpp-changes|title= Ardern to push for TPP changes|website= Radio New Zealand|access-date= 30 October 2017|date= 21 October 2017 | quote = Incoming Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will push for changes to the Trans-Pacific Partnership when she attends next month's Apec meeting in Vietnam.
}}
</ref>

=== United States withdrawal ===
[[File:Presidential Memorandum Regarding Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement.pdf|thumb|Presidential Memorandum Regarding Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement (2017)]]

Aligning himself with his political opposition Hillary Clinton's rejection of the TPP in an interview on PBS in October of 2015, during a speech on the [[2016 United States presidential election|2016 presidential campaign]], [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] nominee [[Donald Trump]] vowed to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership if elected. He argued that the agreement would "undermine" the U.S. economy and its independence.<ref>{{Cite news |url= http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/28/donald-trump-vows-to-cancel-trans-pacific-partners/|title=Donald Trump vows to cancel Trans-Pacific Partnership as president, puts NAFTA on notice|work=[[The Washington Times]]|access-date=15 November 2016}}</ref><ref name="atlantic-wonthelp">{{cite web|title=TPP's Death Won't Help the American Middle Class |url= https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/11/tpps-death-wont-help-the-american-middle-class/507683/|website=The Atlantic |access-date=22 January 2017|date=15 November 2016}}</ref> On 21 November 2016, in a video message, Trump introduced an economic strategy of "putting America first", stating that he would negotiate "fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores." As part of this plan, Trump confirmed his intent for the United States to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership on his first day in office.<ref name="bbc-trumpvideo">{{Cite news |url= https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38059623|title=Trump: US to quit TPP trade deal on first day in office |date= 21 November 2016|newspaper=BBC News|language=en-GB|access-date=21 November 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1= Shear |first1= Michael D.|last2=Davis|first2=Julie Hirschfeld|title=Trump, on YouTube, Pledges to Create Jobs|url= https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/politics/donald-trump-presidency.html?_r=0|website=The New York Times|access-date=22 November 2016|date=21 November 2016}}</ref><ref name="gandm-100days">{{cite web|title=Trump vows to withdraw from TPP deal, silent on NAFTA|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/trump-says-he-will-withdraw-from-tpp-deal-on-first-day-in-office/article32970902/|website=The Globe and Mail|access-date=22 January 2017|url-status=dead|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170119030112/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/trump-says-he-will-withdraw-from-tpp-deal-on-first-day-in-office/article32970902/|archive-date=19 January 2017}}</ref> McConnell affirmed that the TPP would not be considered during the lame-duck session of Congress preceding the inauguration of Trump.<ref>{{Cite news |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/business/economy/donald-trump-trade-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership.html|title=What Is Lost by Burying the Trans-Pacific Partnership?|last=Calmes|first=Jackie|date=11 November 2016|newspaper=The New York Times |issn= 0362-4331|access-date=15 November 2016}}</ref>

President Trump signed a [[presidential memorandum]]<ref group="Note">The official title of the document is: Presidential Memorandum Regarding Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement. {{Cite web |title=Presidential Memorandum Regarding Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement |url=https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/23/presidential-memorandum-regarding-withdrawal-united-states-trans-pacific |date=23 January 2017 |access-date=17 May 2023}}</ref> to withdraw the U.S. from the TPP on 23 January 2017.<ref name="bbc-exexutiveorder">{{cite news|title=Trump executive order pulls out of TPP trade deal|work=BBC News |date=23 January 2017 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38721056|access-date=23 January 2017 | quote = Mr Trump's executive order on TPP is seen as mainly symbolic since the deal was never ratified by a divided US Congress.}}</ref> U.S. Senator [[John McCain]] criticized the withdrawal, saying "it will send a troubling signal of American disengagement in the Asia-Pacific region at a time we can least afford it."<ref>{{cite news|url= https://www.smh.com.au/world/china-eyes-opportunity-as-us-pulls-out-of-transpacific-partnership-20170123-gtxbi1.html |title= China eyes opportunity as US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership|date=24 January 2017|work=Bloomberg / Sydney Morning Herald|access-date=23 January 2017}}</ref> U.S. Senator [[Bernie Sanders]] applauded the move, saying "For the last 30 years, we have had a series of trade deals… which have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and caused a ‘race to the bottom’ which has lowered wages for American workers."<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/sanders-mccain-trump-trans-pacific-partnership-2017-1|title=Reaction to Trump's withdrawal from TPP doesn't fit cleanly along party lines |work= Business Insider|access-date=31 October 2017}}</ref>

=== United States public opinion ===
In a 2018 study conducted on general foreign trade, researchers have found that a sizable majority of U.S. adults view foreign trade as conducive to U.S. growth rather than a foreign threat.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://news.gallup.com/poll/228317/positive-attitudes-toward-foreign-trade-stay-high.aspx|title=In U.S., Positive Attitudes Toward Foreign Trade Stay High|last=Jones|first=Jeffrey M.|publisher=Gallup|access-date=23 April 2018|language=en-us}}</ref>  In an international context, however, Americans generally are among the least likely to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership. A clear partisan divide existed among the U.S. public in supporting the trade deal, with those who identify as members of the Democratic Party or are politically independent being more likely to have a positive opinion of it than those who are members of the Republican Party. Moreover, younger people are more likely to support it than their elders.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/23/americans-favor-tpp-but-less-than-other-countries-do/|title=Americans favor TPP, but less than those in other countries do|date=23 June 2015|work=Pew Research Center|access-date=2 April 2018|language=en-US}}</ref> </p>

President Donald Trump has expressed opposition to the TPP as a tenet of his 2016 election platform, which contributed to his popularity.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Blendon|first=Robert J.|date=April 2017|title=Public Opinion and Trump's Jobs and Trade Policies|journal=Challenge|volume=60|issue=3|pages=228–244|doi=10.1080/05775132.2017.1308763|doi-access=free}}</ref> Critics complained that while Trump has worked to contain the economic and geostrategic influence of China, withdrawing from the TPP reduced the effectiveness of a treaty that was designed to do exactly that.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/09/23/arc-trump-administration-bends-toward-stupidity/|title=Perspective &#124; The arc of the Trump administration bends toward stupidity|first=Daniel W.|last=Drezner|via=www.washingtonpost.com}}</ref>

In any case, free trade has been a politically contentious issue in the U.S. Many Presidential candidates vigorously oppose it while those who initially stood behind it became a lot less vocal in their support.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Dovere|first1=Edward-Isaac|last2=Carlisle|first2=Madeleine|last3=Paschal|first3=Olivia|date=June 26, 2019|title=Joe Biden Won't Say If He Backs the Trade Deal He Helped Sell|work=The Atlantic|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/joe-biden-wont-say-if-he-supports-tpp-trade-deal/592591/|access-date=September 21, 2021|archive-url=https://archive.today/20201125081828/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/joe-biden-wont-say-if-he-supports-tpp-trade-deal/592591/|archive-date=25 November 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> Following the 2020 Presidential election, there is little enthusiasm for the TPP among elected officials in the federal government.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Donnan|first=Shawn|date=November 17, 2020|title=New Pacific Trade Deal Is Biden's Road Back to the TPP|work=Bloomberg|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2020-11-17/supply-chains-latest-new-pacific-deal-is-biden-s-road-back-to-tpp|access-date=September 21, 2021|archive-url=https://archive.today/20210921115751/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2020-11-17/supply-chains-latest-new-pacific-deal-is-biden-s-road-back-to-tpp|archive-date=21 September 2021|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== New negotiations and CPTPP ===
{{main|Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership}} 
TPP's future was uncertain after the United States withdrew. Several signatories, however, signaled their intention to rework TPP without US participation.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-asia-idUSKBN15800V|title=After U.S. exit, Asian nations try to save TPP trade deal|date=24 January 2017|newspaper=Reuters|access-date=24 January 2017}}</ref>

In January 2018, the remaining eleven countries agreed on a revised TPP, now renamed the "[[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership]]" (CPTPP). CPTPP is substantially the same as TPP, but omits 20 provisions that had been added to TPP at US insistence and that are now no longer binding.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.straitstimes.com/world/6-things-to-know-about-the-trans-pacific-trade-pact-cptpp|title=6 things to know about the trans-Pacific trade pact CPTPP |last=hermesauto|date=23 January 2018|work=The Straits Times|access-date=23 January 2018|language=en}}</ref> These provisions primarily relate to investment, [[government procurement]] and [[intellectual property]].<ref>{{cite web|title= TPP11: Unpacking the Suspended Provisions|url= http://www.asiantradecentre.org/talkingtrade//tpp11-unpacking-the-suspended-provisions|website= Asian Trade Centre|date= 14 November 2017|access-date= 23 January 2018}}</ref>

On 16 July 2023, Kemi Badenoch, the UK business secretary, signed the accession protocol for the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). The CPTPP is a trade bloc consisting of 11 member states. The UK government claims that this agreement will provide British businesses with access to a market of 500 million people, resulting in significant benefits. However, critics argue that the economic impact of the deal over a 10-year period will be limited.<ref>{{Cite news |last= Crerar |first= Pippa |date=2023-07-16 |title= Kemi Badenoch signs treaty for UK to join Indo-Pacific trade bloc |language=en |work=The Guardian |url= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/16/kemi-badenoch-signs-treaty-for-uk-to-join-indo-pacific-trade-bloc-cptpp-uk-economy |access-date=2023-07-30}}</ref>

== Contents ==
A version of the text of the agreement "subject to legal review" was released by prospective member parties on 5 November 2015.<ref>{{Citation
| date = 5 November 2015
| title = Text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership
| publisher = New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
| url = http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Treaties-and-International-Law/01-Treaties-for-which-NZ-is-Depositary/0-Trans-Pacific-Partnership.php
| access-date = 5 November 2015}}</ref> Portions of drafts of the full agreement were previously leaked to the public.<ref>{{cite web|title = Leaked: What's in Obama's trade deal|url = https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/06/tpp-deal-leaked-pharma-000126/|website = The Agenda| date=July 2015 |access-date = 5 November 2015}}</ref> Many of the provisions in the leaked documents are modeled on previous trade agreements.{{citation needed|date=April 2015}}

The contents of the TPP go far beyond the standards drafted by the [[World Trade Organization]].  The TPP includes a negative-list of all sectors covered for the liberalizing trade, except for those clearly stated.  The TPP includes new regulation for [[E-commerce|online commerce]], treatment of foreign investors, far more comprehensive protection for intellectual property, labor codes, and an agreement for neutrality regarding [[state-owned enterprise]]s.<ref name="Tropical Issue">{{cite web|url=https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/GEP/GEP2016a/Global-Economic-Prospects-January-2016-Implications-Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Agreement.pdf|title=Potential Macroeconomic Implications of the Trans-Pacific Partnership|publisher=Global Economic Prospect|date=January 2016}}</ref>

A 2016 study by [[University of Maryland, College Park|University of Maryland]] political scientists Todd Allee and Andrew Lugg finds that out of the 74 previous trade agreements that TPP members signed since 1995, the text of the TPP most resembles that from earlier U.S. trade agreements.<ref name=":24">{{Cite journal|last1=Allee|first1=Todd|last2=Lugg|first2=Andrew|date=1 July 2016|title=Who wrote the rules for the Trans-Pacific Partnership?|journal=Research & Politics|language=en|volume=3|issue=3|page=2053168016658919|doi=10.1177/2053168016658919|issn=2053-1680|doi-access=free}}</ref> A 2017 study found that the TPP scored high relative to other trade agreements in terms of a government's ability to freely legislate and implement regulations in given public policy domains.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Broude|first1=Tomer|last2=Haftel|first2=Yoram Z.|last3=Thompson|first3=Alexander|date=1 June 2017|title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Regulatory Space: A Comparison of Treaty Texts|journal=Journal of International Economic Law|language=en|volume=20|issue=2|pages=391–417|doi=10.1093/jiel/jgx016|issn=1369-3034}}</ref>

=== Trade barriers ===
The agreement cuts over 18,000 tariffs.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ustr.gov/tpp/#made-in-america|title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership @ USTR.gov|website=The Trans-Pacific Partnership @ USTR.gov|access-date=22 July 2016|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160727215845/https://ustr.gov/tpp/#made-in-america|archive-date=27 July 2016}}</ref> Tariffs on all U.S. manufactured goods and almost all U.S. farm products would be eliminated, with most eliminations occurring immediately.<ref name=WSJ11272015>{{cite news |author=Ed Gerwin |title=Small Businesses With a Big Stake in the Pacific Trade Deal |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |date=27 November 2015}}</ref> According to the [[Congressional Research Service]], TPP "would be the largest U.S. [[Free Trade Agreement|FTA]] by trade flows ($905 billion in U.S. goods and services exports and $980 billion in imports in 2014)".<ref name=":8"/> Including the US, the signatories represent roughly 40% of global GDP, and one-third of world trade.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/business/international/the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-accord-explained.html|title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Accord Explained|last=Granville|first=Kevin|date=26 July 2016|newspaper=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=27 July 2016}}</ref>

In addition, the agreement mandates expedited customs procedures for express shipments and prohibits customs duties from being applied to electronic transmissions. It also requires additional privacy, security, and consumer protections for online transactions and encourages the publication of online customs forms. These provisions are expected to be particularly beneficial to small businesses.<ref name=WSJ11272015 />

=== Environmental protection ===
Morin and Baumier of the [[Canada Research Chair in International Political Economy]] (writing for the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development) argue that while the TPP contains an impressive number of environmental provisions and a wide range of environmental protection areas, very few of these standards are innovative, most of which being copied from previous US agreements, and that the TPP missed an opportunity to be an original and progressive contribution to the environmental agenda. However, the TPP is innovative in its utilization of a combination of the American and the European approaches in environmental protection. Indeed, in doing so, the TPP became much more detailed and specific than regular US agreements while being legally more enforceable than European agreements.<ref>Morin, Jean-Frederic and Guillaume Baumier, TPP environmental commitments: Combining the US legalistic and the EU sectoral approaches, ICTSD, 2016, http://www.chaire-epi.ulaval.ca/sites/chaire-epi.ulaval.ca/files/publications/tpp_environmental_commitments.pdf</ref>

In 2013 when TPP was still being negotiated, [[Sierra Club]]'s director of responsible trade, Ilana Solomon, argued that the TPP "could directly threaten our climate and our environment [including] new rights that would be given to corporations, and new constraints on the fossil fuel industry all have a huge impact on our climate, water, and land."<ref>Ibrahim Balkhy (9 December 2013). [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/09/obama-trans-pacific-partnership_n_4414891.html "Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership May Undermine Public Health, Environment, Internet All At Once"]. ''[[The Huffington Post]]''. Retrieved 10 January 2014.</ref> Upon the release of a draft of the Environment Chapter in January 2014, the [[Natural Resources Defense Council]] and the [[World Wide Fund for Nature]] joined with the Sierra Club in criticizing the TPP.<ref>Howard, Brian Clark (17 January 2014). [https://web.archive.org/web/20140131033503/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140117-trans-pacific-partnership-free-trade-environment-obama/ 4 Ways Green Groups Say Trans-Pacific Partnership Will Hurt Environment]. ''[[National Geographic (magazine)|National Geographic]]''. Retrieved 23 January 2014.</ref> After the announcement of the United Nations [[Sustainable Development Goals]] (SDGs) on 25 September 2015 and the finalisation of the TPP a week later, critics discussed the interactions between the SDGs and the TPP.  While one critic sees the TPP as providing a mixed bag of benefits and drawbacks to the SDGs,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/pacific-trade-deal-needs-harmonize-sustainable-development-goals|title=Pacific Trade Deal Needs To Harmonize With Sustainable Development Goals|date=23 October 2015|publisher=YaleGlobal Online|author=Shuaihua Wallace Cheng|access-date=18 November 2015}}</ref> another regards the TPP as being incompatible with the SDGs, highlighting that if the development provisions clash with any other aspect of the TPP, the other aspect takes priority.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://theconversation.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership-poses-a-grave-threat-to-sustainable-development-50398|title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership poses a grave threat to sustainable development|publisher=[[The Conversation Australia]]|author=Matthew Rimmer|date=11 November 2015 |access-date=18 November 2015}}</ref> The [[Friends of the Earth]] have spoken out against the TPP.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.foe.org.au/articles/2015-10-02/briefing-tpp-and-sustainable-development-goals|title=Briefing on the TPP and Sustainable Development Goals &#124; Friends of the Earth Australia|date=2 October 2015|publisher=Friends of the Earth Australia|author=Cam Walker|access-date=18 November 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://asiancorrespondent.com/2015/10/tpp-irreconcilable-with-un-sustainable-development-goals-say-critics/|title=TPP irreconcilable with UN sustainable development goals, say critics|date=6 October 2015|publisher=[[Asian Correspondent]]|author=Rowena Dela Rosa Yoon|access-date=18 November 2015}}</ref>

The [[White House Office|White House]] has cited supportive statements from the [http://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/wwf-statement-on-the-close-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-negotiations World Wildlife Fund], the [[The Nature Conservancy|Nature Conservancy]], the [[The Humane Society of the United States|Humane Society]], the [[Wildlife Conservation Society]], [[Defenders of Wildlife]], [[International Fund for Animal Welfare]], [[World Animal Protection]] and other environmental groups in favor of the TPP.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/03/31/what-theyre-saying-environmental-advocates-point-trans-pacific-partnership-historic-|work=[[whitehouse.gov]]|title=What They're Saying: Environmental Advocates Point to the Trans-Pacific Partnership as a Historic Opportunity to Protect Our Oceans, Forests, and Wildlife|via=[[NARA|National Archives]]|date=31 March 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/economy/trade|title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership|website=The White House|access-date=22 July 2016|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160715213957/https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/economy/trade|archive-date=15 July 2016}}</ref> The [[Peterson Institute for International Economics]] argues that the TPP is "the most environmentally friendly trade deal ever negotiated."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://piie.com/newsroom/short-videos/tpp-and-environment|title=TPP and the Environment {{!}} PIIE|website=piie.com|access-date=20 July 2016|date=22 April 2016}}</ref> In regards to ISDS, PIIE analysts note that there is little evidence of constraints on environmental policies resulting from ISDS litigation.<ref name=":23" />

A September 2016 report by the [[Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy]] (IATP) predicts that "as countries take action to protect the climate, conflicts between trade rules and climate goals will escalate".<ref name="lilliston-2016">
{{cite book
 | last = Lilliston | first = Ben
 | title = The climate cost of free trade: how the TPP and trade deals undermine the Paris climate agreement
 | date = September 2016
 | publisher = [[Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy]] (IATP)
 | location = Minneapolis, MN, USA
 | url = http://www.iatp.org/files/2016_09_06_ClimateCostFreeTrade.pdf
 | access-date = 25 September 2016
}}
</ref>{{rp|1}}  The report goes on to say that trade agreements like the TPP set broad-reaching rules for the economy and government policy, thereby expanding trade, often in extractive sectors, and protecting corporations and financial firms from future measures to stabilize the climate.<ref name="lilliston-2016"/>

=== Good governance ===
According to the [[Office of the United States Trade Representative]], signatories are required to join the [[United Nations Convention Against Corruption]] (UNCAC); criminalize bribery of public officials; have in place a code of conduct for public officials; take measures to decrease conflicts of interest; effectively enforce anti-corruption laws and regulations; and involve private organizations in the fight against corruption.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ustr.gov/tpp/#strengthening-good-governance|title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership @ USTR.gov|website=The Trans-Pacific Partnership @ USTR.gov|access-date=22 July 2016|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160727215845/https://ustr.gov/tpp/#strengthening-good-governance|archive-date=27 July 2016}}</ref>

=== Human rights ===
According to the [[Office of the United States Trade Representative]], the TPP prohibits exploitative child labor and forced labor; ensures the right to [[collective bargaining]]; and prohibits employment discrimination.<ref name=":19">{{cite web|url=https://ustr.gov/tpp/#standing-up-for-human-rights|title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership @ USTR.gov|website=The Trans-Pacific Partnership @ USTR.gov|access-date=22 July 2016|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160727215845/https://ustr.gov/tpp/#standing-up-for-human-rights|archive-date=27 July 2016}}</ref> The USTR asserts that "research by the International Labor Organization and the World Trade Organization finds that combining expanded trade opportunities with strong protections for workers can help workers move from informal-sector jobs into formal work in wage-paying, regulated export industries which offer a minimum wage, benefits, and safety programs".<ref name=":19" /> The USTR asserts that "research also shows that trade improves human rights conditions by fostering pluralistic institutions and increasing open exchanges of information."<ref name=":19" />

''[[PolitiFact.com|PolitiFact]]'' rates President Obama's claim that due to the Trans-Pacific Partnership "we've got a country like [[Malaysia]] taking really serious efforts to crack down on [[human trafficking]]" as "mostly true".<ref name=":28">{{cite web|url=http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/aug/05/barack-obama/obama-claims-positive-relationship-between-trans-p/|title=Checking an Obama claim on TPP and Malaysian human rights|access-date=7 August 2016}}</ref> ''PolitiFact'' notes that Malaysia began to comply with the TPP in June 2015, amending its law to improve the treatment of trafficking victims.<ref name=":28" /> Among the changes, Malaysia gave victims better access to government shelters, transitional housing and more victim-friendly restitution procedures.<ref name=":28" /> Malaysia has also taken steps to stop human trafficking within the construction industry.<ref name=":28" />

In August 2017, Reuters reported that the [[Government of Vietnam|Vietnamese government]] was intensifying repression of human rights, in part because of the Trump administration's decision to drop the Trans-Pacific Partnership.<ref name=":35">{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vietnam-arrests-idUSKBN1AI0LF|title=Trump factor weighs as Vietnam intensifies crackdown on dissidents|date=2017|work=Reuters|access-date=3 August 2017}}</ref> Membership of the TPP had previously encouraged Vietnam to show a good human rights record.<ref name=":35" />

=== Intellectual property ===
The intellectual property section of a leaked draft of the TPP lays out a minimum level of protection parties to the Agreement must grant for [[trademark]]s, [[copyright]], and [[patents]].<ref name=Gold_standard>{{cite news|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/eastwest-center/tpp-the-new-gold-standard_b_9544428.html|title=TPP: The New Gold Standard for Intellectual Property Protection in Trade Agreements?|work=Huffington Post|author=Carlos A. Primo Braga|date=24 March 2016|access-date=22 July 2016}}</ref> Copyright is granted at a length of life of the author plus 70 years,<ref name=Gold_standard /> and requires countries to set criminal penalties for violating copyright protections such as [[digital rights management]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cnet.com/news/spotlight-on-digital-rights-as-tpp-text-revealed-trans-pacific-partnership/|title=Spotlight on digital rights as full Trans-Pacific Partnership text finally revealed|publisher=CNET|author=Claire Reilly|date=5 November 2015|access-date=22 July 2016}}</ref>

The [[Office of the United States Trade Representative]] stated that the TPP would spur innovation by requiring signatories to establish strong patentability standard and adopt strong copyright protections.<ref name=":18">{{cite web|url=https://ustr.gov/tpp/#promoting-innovation|title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership @ USTR.gov|website=The Trans-Pacific Partnership @ USTR.gov|access-date=22 July 2016|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160727215845/https://ustr.gov/tpp/#promoting-innovation|archive-date=27 July 2016}}</ref>

Walter Park, Professor of Economics at [[American University]], argues, based on the existing literature, that the pharmaceutical protections in TPP will potentially enhance unaffiliated licensing in developing countries, lead to tech transfers that contribute to local learning-by-doing, stimulate new drug launches in more countries, expand marketing and distribution networks, and encourage early-stage [[pharmaceutical innovations]].<ref name=":14">{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/events/tpp-pharmaceutical-protections-too-strong-too-weak-or-just-right|title=The TPP and Pharmaceutical Protections: Too Strong, Too Weak, or Just Right?|date=25 May 2016|access-date=17 July 2016}}</ref>

As of December 2011, some provisions relating to the enforcement of patents and copyrights alleged to be present in the US proposal for the agreement had been criticised as being excessively restrictive, beyond those in the Korea–US trade agreement and [[Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement]] (ACTA).<ref name="pijip">{{cite journal |last1=Flynn |first1=Sean |last2=Kaminski |first2=Margot E. |last3=Baker |first3=Brook K. |last4=Koo |first4=Jimmy H. |title=Public Interest Analysis of the US TPP Proposal for an IP Chapter |journal=Joint Pijip/TLS Research Paper Series |publisher=Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property |date=6 December 2011 |url=http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/21/}}</ref><ref name=efftpp />

The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]<ref name=efftpp /> was highly critical of the leaked draft chapter on intellectual property covering copyright, trademarks, and patents. In the US, they believed this was likely to further entrench controversial aspects of US copyright law (such as the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]]) and restrict the ability of Congress to engage in domestic law reform to meet the evolving intellectual property needs of American citizens and the innovative technology sector. Standardization of copyright provisions by other signatories would also require significant changes to other countries' copyright laws. These, according to EFF, include obligations for countries to expand [[copyright term]]s, restrict [[fair use]], adopt criminal sanctions for copyright infringement that is done without a commercial motivation (ex. [[file sharing]] of copyrighted digital media), place greater liability on [[Internet intermediary|internet intermediaries]], escalate protections for [[digital lock]]s and create new threats for journalists and whistleblowers.<ref name=efftpp>{{cite web|title=Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement|url=https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp|access-date=13 May 2015}}</ref>

Both the copyright term expansion and the non-complaint provision (i.e., competent authorities may initiate legal action without the need for a formal complaint) previously failed to pass in Japan because they were so controversial.<ref name=effjap /> In early 2015, "a group of artists, archivists, academics, and activists  ... in Japan [asked] their negotiators to oppose requirements in the TPP that would require their country, and five of the other 11 nations negotiating this secretive agreement, to expand their copyright terms to match the United States' already excessive length of copyright."<ref name=effjap>{{cite web|title=Massive Coalition of Japanese Organizations Campaigns Against TPP Copyright Provisions|date=17 March 2015|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/massive-coalition-japanese-organizations-campaign-against-tpp-copyright-provisions|access-date=13 May 2015}}</ref> The [[s:Trans-Pacific Partnership/Chapter 18#Article 18c: Term of Protection for Copyright and Related Rights|final agreement]] nonetheless set a term of copyright equal to the one that obtains under U.S. law of life of the author plus 70 years.

[[Ken Akamatsu]], creator of Japanese manga series ''[[Love Hina]]'' and ''[[Mahou Sensei Negima!]]'', expressed concern the agreement could decimate the derivative [[dōjinshi]] (self-published) works prevalent in Japan. Akamatsu argued that the TPP "would destroy derivative dōjinshi. And as a result, the power of the entire [[manga]] industry would also diminish."<ref>[https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2011-10-31/negima-akamatsu-warns-against-changing-japan-copyright-law "Negima's Akamatsu Warns Against Changing Japan's Copyright Law"], [[Anime News Network]], 31 October 2011. Retrieved 10 November 2011</ref>

==== Pharmaceuticals ====
In May 2015, Nobel Memorial prize winning economist [[Paul Krugman]] expressed concern that the TPP would tighten the patent laws and allow corporations such as big pharmaceutical companies and Hollywood to gain advantages, in terms of increasing rewards, at the cost of consumers, and that people in developing countries would not be able to access the medicines under the TPP regime.<ref name=TNYTPRK22May2015TPPA>[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/opinion/paul-krugman-trade-and-trust.html "Trade and Trust"] Paul Krugman, ''The New York Times'', 22 May 2015</ref> However, Walter Park, Professor of Economics at American University, argues that it is far from clear in economic research that this would necessarily happen: clarifying intellectual property rights on drugs, for some developing countries, has not led to greater prices and less access to drugs.<ref name=":14"/> Park also argues, based on the existing literature, that the pharmaceutical protections in TPP will potentially enhance unaffiliated licensing in developing countries, lead to tech transfers that contribute to local learning-by-doing, stimulate new drug launches in more countries, expand marketing and distribution networks, and encourage early stage pharmaceutical innovations.<ref name=":14" /> The [[Office of the United States Trade Representative]] notes that the TPP "aligns with the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health", which allows developing countries to circumvent [[patent]] rights for better access to [[essential medicines]].<ref name=":18"/>

Pharmaceutical companies have criticized TPP for having too lenient intellectual property protections.<ref name=":14" /><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-05/drugmakers-say-pacific-trade-pact-to-stifle-investment-in-cures|title=Drugmakers Say Pacific Trade Agreement to Stifle Investment|last=DoniBloomfield|first=Anna Edney annaedney Doni Bloomfield|website=Bloomberg.com|date=5 October 2015|access-date=20 July 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9456757/trans-pacific-partnership-explained|title=The just-completed Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, explained|last=Lee|first=Timothy B.|date=5 October 2015|website=Vox|access-date=20 July 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://kff.org/news-summary/tpps-pharmaceutical-provisions-likely-to-draw-criticism-from-industry-aid-agencies/|title=TPP's Pharmaceutical Provisions Likely To Draw Criticism From Industry, Aid Agencies|date=6 October 2015|language=en-US|access-date=20 July 2016}}</ref>

In July 2015, an editorial in the ''New England Journal of Medicine'' cited concerns by [[Médecins sans Frontières]] and [[Oxfam]] that a spike in drug prices caused by patent extensions could threaten millions of lives.<ref name="Kapczynski">{{cite journal|date=16 July 2015|title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership — Is It Bad for Your Health?|journal=[[New England Journal of Medicine]]|volume=373|issue=3|pages=201–203|doi=10.1056/NEJMp1506158|pmid=26061752|last1=Kapczynski|first1=Amy}}</ref> Extending "data exclusivity" provisions would "prevent drug regulatory agencies such as the [[Food and Drug Administration]] from registering a generic version of a drug for a certain number of years." The article arugues that TPP could theoretically require corporations be paid compensation for any "lost profits" found to result from a nation's health regulations.<ref name="Kapczynski" /> The article argues that the provisions in the TPP concerning generic drugs directly target [[Pharmaceutical industry in India|India's pharmaceutical industry]].<ref name="Kapczynski" /> [[Doctors Without Borders]] said in November 2015 that it was "extremely concerned about the inclusion of dangerous provisions that would dismantle public health safeguards enshrined in international law and restrict access to price-lowering generic medicines for millions of people."<ref name="doctorswithoutborders_2015_TPP">{{cite web|url=http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/statement-msf-official-release-full-text-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-agreement|title=Statement by MSF on the Official Release of the Full Text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement|date=5 November 2015|work=Doctors Without Borders|access-date=6 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151107112340/http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/statement-msf-official-release-full-text-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-agreement|archive-date=7 November 2015|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="DemNowTPPout">{{Citation|last1=Goodman|first1=Amy|title=Full Text of TPP Trade Deal Revealed -- and Critics Say It's Even Worse Than They Thought|date=6 November 2015|url=http://www.democracynow.org/2015/11/6/full_text_of_tpp_trade_deal|last2=González|last3=Wallach|first2=Juan|first3=Lori|author-link=Amy Goodman|author2-link=Juan Gonzalez (journalist)|author3-link=Lori Wallach|publisher=Democracy Now|access-date=6 November 2015}}</ref> The Australian Public Health Association (PHAA) published a media release in February 2014 that highlighted "the ways in which some of the expected economic gains from the TPPA may be undermined by poor health outcomes, and the economic costs associated with these poor health outcomes."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1402/S00215/protecting-the-health-of-australians-in-the-tppa.htm|title=Protecting the Health of Australians in the TPPA|date=18 February 2014|newspaper=Scoop Independent News|access-date=18 February 2014}}</ref>

A number of United States Congressional members,<ref name="10reps letter">{{cite web|url=http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Ten-Representatives-on-TPP-08022011.pdf|title=Letter from 10 Representatives asking for a meeting to discuss IP policies that could "undermine public health and access to medicines."|date=3 August 2011|publisher=infojustice.org|access-date=30 January 2012}}</ref> including Senator [[Bernie Sanders]]<ref name="sanders letter">{{cite web|url=http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Sen_Sanders_letter_to_USTR_TPP_negotiations_12-1-2011.pdf|title=Letter from Senator Sanders to US Trade Representative Ron Kirk|date=1 December 2011|publisher=keionline.org|access-date=30 January 2012}}</ref> and Representatives [[Sander M. Levin]], [[John Conyers]], [[Jim McDermott]] and the now-retired [[Henry Waxman]], as well as<ref name="four reps letter">{{cite web|url=http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Four-Democrat-Reps-10192011.pdf|title=Letter from Representatives Levin, Waxman, McDermott and Conyers to US Trade Representative Ron Kirk|date=19 October 2011|access-date=30 January 2012}}</ref> [[John Lewis]], [[Charles B. Rangel]], [[Earl Blumenauer]], [[Lloyd Doggett]] and then-congressman [[Pete Stark]],<ref name="five reps letter">{{cite web|url=http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Five-MOCs-September-8-2011.pdf|title=Letter from Reps. Lewis, Stark, Rangel, Blumenauer, and Doggett asking that the May 10th agreement serve as a 'non-negotiable starting point' for access to medicines|date=8 September 2011|access-date=30 January 2012}}</ref> have expressed concerns about access to medicine. By protecting intellectual property in the form of the TPP mandating patent extensions, access by patients to affordable medicine in the developing world could be hindered, particularly in Vietnam.<ref name="10reps letter" /> Additionally, they worried that the TPP would not be flexible enough to accommodate existing non-discriminatory drug reimbursement programs and the diverse health systems of member countries.<ref name="five reps letter" /> In February 2015, former U.S. Labor Secretary [[Robert Reich]] stated he opposed the TPP because it would delay cheaper generic versions of drugs and because of its provisions for international tribunals that can require corporations be paid "compensation for any lost profits found to result from a nation's regulations."<ref>''[http://www.salon.com/2015/02/05/robert_reich_a_trans_pacific_partnership_would_be_devastating_partner Robert Reich: A Trans-Pacific Partnership Would Be Devastating].'' Salon.com, 5 February 2015</ref>

=== Investor-state arbitration ===
The TPP agreement establishes an [[investor-state dispute settlement]] (ISDS) mechanism,<ref>{{cite web |title=TPP Final Text Chapter 9 Investment |url=https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-Investment.pdf |access-date=17 January 2016 }}</ref> which grants investors the right to sue foreign governments for treaty violations. For example, if an investor invests in country "A", a member of a trade treaty, and country A breaches that treaty, then the investor may sue country A's government for the breach.<ref>Hernando Otero and Omar García-Bolívar, [http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/International_Arbitration_Foreign_Investors_Host_States.htm "International Arbitration between Foreign Investors and Host States"] Hauser Global Law School Program. NYU, December 2011. Retrieved 14 December 2014</ref> ISDS is meant to provide investors in foreign countries basic protections from foreign government actions such as "freedom from discrimination", "protection against uncompensated expropriation of property", "protection against denial of justice" and "right to transfer capital":<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2015/march/investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds|title=FACT SHEET: Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) {{!}} United States Trade Representative|website=ustr.gov|access-date=22 May 2016}}</ref><ref name=":15" />
* Freedom from discrimination: An assurance that those doing business abroad will face a level playing field and will not be treated less favorably than local investors or competitors from other countries.
* Protection against uncompensated seizure of property: An assurance that property of investors won't be seized by the government without just compensation.
* Protection against denial of justice: An assurance that investors will not be denied justice in criminal, civil, or administrative adjudicatory proceedings.
* Right to transfer capital: An assurance that investors will be able to move capital relating to their investments freely, subject to safeguards to provide government flexibility, including to respond to financial crises and ensure the integrity and stability of the financial system.
ISDS cannot ask governments to overturn local laws (unlike the [[World Trade Organization]]) which violate trade agreements,<ref name=":23">{{cite web|url=https://piie.com/publications/piie-briefings/assessing-trans-pacific-partnership-volume-1-market-access-and-sectoral|title=Assessing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Volume 1: Market Access and Sectoral Issues {{!}} PIIE|website=piie.com|date=13 March 2016|access-date=22 July 2016}}</ref><ref name=":27">{{cite web|url=http://www.ibanet.org/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=f30e1893-08fb-4c8e-93bd-eac8442faf5e|title=Investor-state dispute settlement: the importance of an informed, fact-based debate|publisher=International Bar Association|access-date=3 August 2016|archive-date=30 September 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200930182738/https://www.ibanet.org/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=f30e1893-08fb-4c8e-93bd-eac8442faf5e|url-status=dead}}</ref> but can grant monetary damages to investors adversely affected by such laws.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/10/obscure-legal-system-lets-corportations-sue-states-ttip-icsid|title=The obscure legal system that lets corporations sue countries|newspaper=The Guardian|author= Claire Provost and Matt Kennard|date=10 June 2015|access-date=22 July 2016}}</ref> As pointed out by the [[Office of the United States Trade Representative]], ISDS requires specific treaty violations, and does not allow corporations to sue solely over "lost profits".<ref name=":15">{{cite web|url=https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/blog/2015/march/isds-important-questions-and-answers|title=ISDS: Important Questions and Answers {{!}} United States Trade Representative|website=ustr.gov|access-date=20 July 2016}}</ref>

The TPP specifically excludes tobacco industries from the ISDS process.<ref name=":11">{{cite web|url=http://www.cfr.org/trade/tpp-tobacco-exception-proves-new-rule-trade/p37509|title=TPP Tobacco Exception Proves the New Rule in Trade|website=Council on Foreign Relations|access-date=17 June 2016}}</ref> The carve-out came as a response to concerns about ISDS cases against anti-smoking laws, including [[Philip Morris v. Uruguay]].<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.newsweek.com/war-tobacco-makes-it-tpp-free-trade-deal-426206|title=The War on Tobacco Makes It Into the TPP Free Trade Deal|magazine=Newsweek|author= Thomas J. Bollyky |date=13 February 2016|access-date=22 July 2016}}</ref> The exemption of tobacco from ISDS is a first for an international trade agreement.<ref name=":11" />

On the basis of leaks, economists [[Joseph Stiglitz]] and Adam S. Hersh criticized the ISDS provisions of the TPP for interfering with the ability of governments to prevent public harm, alleging that if asbestos been discovered today, governments would have been unable to impose regulations without creating grounds for an ISDS suit.<ref name=StiglitzOct5>{{Citation |last1=Stiglitz |first1=Joseph |last2=Hersh |first2=Adam S. |author-link=Joseph Stiglitz |date=5 October 2015 |title=Opinion: The Trans-Pacific Partnership charade: TPP isn't about 'free' trade at all |publisher=MarketWatch |url=http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-trans-pacific-partnership-charade-tpp-isnt-about-free-trade-at-all-2015-10-05
|access-date=28 October 2015}}</ref> Stiglitz also claimed that the TPP would give oil companies the right to sue governments for efforts to reduce carbon emissions and [[global warming]].<ref name=StiglitzOct27>{{Citation
|last1=Goodman |first1=Amy |last2=Stiglitz |first2=Joseph |author-link=Amy Goodman
|author-link2=Joseph Stiglitz |date=27 October 2015 |title=Joseph Stiglitz: Under TPP, Polluters Could Sue U.S. for Setting Carbon Emissions Limits |url=http://www.democracynow.org/2015/10/27/joseph_stiglitz_under_tpp_polluters_could|access-date=27 October 2015}}</ref>

In November 2015, Columbia professor [[Jeffrey Sachs]] concluded that the ISDS system of the TPP grants huge power to investors, and damages the judicial systems of all the member countries. He alleges that [[ISDS]] has been already used by corporations to upset governments so as to weaken the regulations that have negative effects on their profits.<ref name=THP11Nov2015JSOTPP>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/tpp-flawed-vote-congress_b_8534286.html Why the TPP Is Too Flawed for a 'Yes' Vote in Congress] J. Sachs, ''The Huffington Post'', 11 November 2015</ref> In February 2016, Lise Johnson and Lisa Sachs of the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment and [[Jeffrey Sachs]] of the Earth Institute allege that foreign corporations can sue a national government in international arbitration over a government's actions if the measures (including those for public health, national security, environment, food and drug, and responses to economic crises) have a negative effect on their profits and economic interests.<ref name="cnn190216LJ">[https://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/19/opinions/tpp-threatens-sustainable-development-sachs/ The real danger in TPP] L. Johnson, L. Sachs and J. Sachs, CNN, 19 February 2016</ref> [[Lori Wallach]] of Public Citizen's [[Global Trade Watch]] raised similar concerns while TPP was being negotiated.<ref name="nation">{{cite magazine|url=http://www.thenation.com/article/168627/nafta-steroids#|title=NAFTA on Steroids|date=16 July 2012|last1=Wallach|first1=Lori|magazine=The Nation|access-date=10 July 2014}}</ref>

In a February 2016 op-ed against the TPP, Senator [[Elizabeth Warren]] used the example of a French company suing Egypt because Egypt raised its minimum wage as an argument against the ISDS provisions of the TPP.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html|title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose|last=Warren|first=Elizabeth|date=25 February 2015|newspaper=The Washington Post|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286|access-date=1 August 2016}}</ref> ''The Washington Post''{{'}}s editorial board has, however, challenged this characterization of the case, noting that "[[Veolia]] of France, a waste management company, invoked ISDS to enforce a contract with the government of [[Alexandria|Alexandria, Egypt]], that it says required compensation if costs increased; the company maintains that the wage increases triggered this provision. Incidentally, Veolia was working with Alexandria on a [[World Bank]]-supported project to reduce greenhouse gases, not some corporate plot to exploit the people. The case — which would result, at most, in a monetary award to Veolia, not the overthrow of the minimum wage — remains in litigation."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-buy-the-trade-deal-alarmism/2015/03/11/41575fee-c1d5-11e4-9271-610273846239_story.html|title=Don't buy the trade deal alarmism |author=Editorial Board|date=11 March 2015|newspaper=The Washington Post|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286|access-date=1 August 2016}}</ref>

The [[Office of the United States Trade Representative]] challenges the notion that ISDS challenges "the sovereign ability of governments impose any measure they wish to protect labor rights, the environment, or other issues of public welfare".<ref name=":15" /> The [[International Bar Association|International Bar Association (IBA)]] mirrors these sentiments, noting that "while investment treaties limit states’ ability to inflict arbitrary or discriminatory treatment, they do not limit (and, in fact, expressly safeguard) a state's sovereign right to regulate in the public interest in a [[Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing|fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory]] manner."<ref name=":27" /> The [[White House Office|White House]] notes that investment protections are a component of more than 3,000 trade agreements, the vast majority of which have some form of neutral arbitration.<ref name=":17">{{cite web|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/02/26/investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds-questions-and-answers|title=Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Questions and Answers|date=26 February 2015|via=[[NARA|National Archives]]|work=[[whitehouse.gov]]|access-date=22 July 2016}}</ref> The United States is party to at least 50 such agreements, has only faced 13 ISDS cases and never lost an ISDS case.<ref name=":17" /> The White House asserts that the ISDS components of the TPP are an upgrade and improvement on ISDS in other trade agreements: TPP makes it absolutely clear that governments can regulate in the public interest (including with regard to health, safety and the environment); TPP includes the ability to dismiss frivolous claims quickly and award fees against the claimant to deter such suits; sham corporations will be prevented from accessing the investment protections; and arbitration proceedings under TPP will be open to the public and allow for inputs from non-parties.<ref name=":17" />

The [[Peterson Institute for International Economics]] argues that "the ISDS provisions in the TPP are a significant improvement over those in previous agreements".<ref name=":23" /> PIIE notes that the ISDS mechanism in the TPP respects environmental, health, and safety regulation; ensures the transparency of dispute proceedings; and eliminates [[forum shopping]].<ref name=":23" /> PIIE asserts that some of the innovations in the ISDS provisions of TPP "are generally disliked by the US business community."<ref name=":23" /> PIIE claims that ISDS provisions are necessary, as they boost investment: "empirical evidence has shown that treaties including these provisions have a positive effect on foreign direct investment (FDI) flows between signatory countries."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/what-do-data-say-about-relationship-between-investor-state|title=What Do the Data Say about the Relationship between Investor-State Dispute Settlement Provisions and FDI? {{!}} PIIE|website=piie.com|date=11 March 2015|access-date=22 July 2016}}</ref> PIIE challenges the claim that ISDS "arbitrators lack integrity", noting that arbitrators take an oath of impartiality and both sides of a case choose arbitrators.<ref name=":23" /> PIIE agrees "that secrecy has gone too far" in many ISDS cases, but notes that "TPP negotiators heeded this criticism" and opened up ISDS cases to greater transparency.<ref name=":23" />

According to the [[International Bar Association|International Bar Association (IBA)]], states have won a higher percentage of ISDS cases than investors, and that around one-third of all cases end in settlement.<ref name=":27" /> Claimant investors, when successful, recover on average less than half of the amounts claimed.<ref name=":27" /> IBA notes that "only 8 per cent of ISDS proceedings are commenced by very large multinational corporations."<ref name=":27" /> IBA challenges the notion that ISDS is biased against developing countries, noting that there is "no correlation between the success rates of claims against states and their income levels or development status."<ref name=":27" /> IBA notes that ISDS is necessary even in countries with sophisticated domestic legal systems because those domestic courts rule according to domestic laws, not international law.<ref name=":27" /> IBA notes that "increasingly, awards require the losing party to pay arbitration costs and legal fees to the winning party", which deters investors from initiating unmeritorious cases.<ref name=":27" />

=== Labour standards ===
According to the [[Office of the United States Trade Representative]], the TPP imposes "binding and fully enforceable obligations" on signatories to "protect the freedom to form unions and bargain collectively" and "eliminate exploitative child labor and forced labor protect against employment discrimination".<ref name=":21">{{cite web|url=https://ustr.gov/tpp/#protecting-workers|title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership @ USTR.gov|website=The Trans-Pacific Partnership @ USTR.gov|access-date=22 July 2016|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160727215845/https://ustr.gov/tpp/#protecting-workers|archive-date=27 July 2016}}</ref> The obligations include "laws on acceptable conditions of work related to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health."<ref name=":21" /> The USTR insists that if countries like Malaysia and Vietnam do not enforce provisions relating to forced labor, human trafficking and collective bargaining, they will cease to get the economic benefits of the TPP agreement.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership-eddc8d87ac73#.7j4pdoi5g|title=Will TPP promote higher labor standards?|last=Representative|first=U. S. Trade|date=5 November 2015|website=Medium|access-date=22 July 2016|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160629204511/https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership-eddc8d87ac73#.7j4pdoi5g|archive-date=29 June 2016}}</ref>

The [[Peterson Institute for International Economics]] asserts that "the TPP includes more protections of labor rights than any previous US free trade agreement."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://piie.com/newsroom/short-videos/labor-standards-tpp|title=Labor Standards in the TPP {{!}} PIIE|website=piie.com|date=31 May 2016|access-date=20 July 2016}}</ref> In January 2016, [[Human Rights Watch]] said that the TPP side agreements with Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei "are a unique and significant step in efforts to protect labor rights in trade agreements" but noted that enforcement of these rules remains to be seen: "gauging compliance will require subjective assessments by the US that may take years to carry out and face obstacles arising from foreign policy objectives, commercial interests, and other political considerations."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/12/qa-trans-pacific-partnership#4|title=Q&A: The Trans-Pacific Partnership|date=12 January 2016|website=Human Rights Watch|access-date=22 May 2016}}</ref>

Dartmouth economics Professor Emily J. Blanchard argues that while the TPP has been roundly criticized on the political left, progressives should actually be supportive of the TPP: "The TPP’s promise of a new progressive rule book – one that includes enforceable agreements against child labor and workplace discrimination, measures to punish illegal logging and trade in protected species, and protections against consumer fraud – would mark a substantial step forward in the progressive policy agenda on the global stage."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://theconversation.com/why-progressives-should-rescue-the-tpp-trade-deal-60304|title=Why progressives should rescue the TPP trade deal|last=Blanchard|first=Emily J.|date=23 June 2016 |access-date=20 July 2016}}</ref>

In May 2015, U.S. congressman [[Sander Levin]] argued that it is difficult to enforce trade deals, as he questioned Vietnam's willingness to meet the labour standards of TPP.<ref name="TG21May2015SLOTPP">[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/21/trans-pacific-partnership-obama-trade-deal-asia-workers Trans-Pacific Partnership won't improve workers' rights in Asia, critics warn] S. Greenhouse, The Guardian, 21 May 2015</ref> A report by U.S. Senator [[Elizabeth Warren]] said that there was a huge gap between the labor standards of past US free trade agreements and the actual enforcement of those provisions.<ref name="TG21May2015SLOTPP" /> However, PIIE analysts note that research shows that the presence of "sticks" (a possible suspension of trade benefits) and "carrots" (technical assistance) in trade deals increase the likelihood that labor obligations in trade deals have a positive effect; there are both sticks and carrots present in TPP.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://piie.com/publications/piie-briefings/assessing-trans-pacific-partnership-volume-2-innovations-trading-rules|title=Assessing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Volume 2: Innovations in Trading Rules {{!}} PIIE|website=piie.com|date=21 March 2016|access-date=22 July 2016}}</ref>

=== Regulatory cooperation ===
Even though the TPP had not been passed, the agreement had already introduced forms of regulatory cooperation for agriculture beyond that found in the WTO.<ref name=":31">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/30/the-sky-fell-on-the-u-s-poultry-industry-last-year-but-nafta-and-the-tpp-helped-protect-u-s-exports/|title=The sky fell on the U.S. poultry industry last year. But NAFTA and the TPP helped protect U.S. exports.|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=30 August 2016}}</ref> This means that regulators in different TPP signatories have been engaging with each other and building trust.<ref name=":31" /> Chad P. Bown, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, argues that this regulatory cooperation meant that the US poultry industry was not as hard-hit by the [[2015 United States H5N2 outbreak|2015 bird flu outbreak]], as regulators in TPP countries cooperated and continued to accept US exports of poultry.<ref name=":31" />

== Economic impact ==
The [[United States International Trade Commission|U.S. International Trade Commission]], the [[Peterson Institute for International Economics]], the [[World Bank]] and the Office of the Chief Economist at Global Affairs Canada found that the final agreement would, if ratified, lead to net positive economic outcomes for all signatories.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2"/><ref name=":12" />

=== Effects on economic equality ===
In 2013, [[Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences|Nobel]] Memorial prize-winning economist [[Joseph Stiglitz]] warned that, based on leaked drafts of the TPP, it "serves the interests of the wealthiest."<ref name="NYT-20140315">{{cite news|url=http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization|title=On the Wrong Side of Globalization|last=Stiglitz|first=Joseph E.|date=15 March 2014|work=[[The New York Times]]|author-link=Joseph Stiglitz|access-date=17 March 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/secrecy-surrounds-transpacific-partnership-talks-20131208-2yzea.html|title=Secrecy surrounds Trans-Pacific Partnership talks|date=9 December 2013|newspaper=The Sydney Morning Herald|access-date=9 December 2013}}</ref> Organised labour in the U.S. argued, during the negotiations, that the trade deal would largely benefit corporations at the expense of workers in the manufacturing and service industries.<ref>[https://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/fighting-tpp-to-protect-workers-rights-87825475756 "Fighting TPP to protect workers' rights"]. ''[[The Ed Show]]''. 11 December 2013. Retrieved 17 December 2013.</ref> The [[Economic Policy Institute]] and the [[Center for Economic and Policy Research]] have argued that the TPP could result in job losses and declining wages in the U.S.<ref>[http://www.epi.org/publication/trade-pacts-korus-trans-pacific-partnership/ "No Jobs from Trade Pacts: The Trans-Pacific Partnership Could Be Much Worse than the Over-Hyped Korea Deal"]. [[Economic Policy Institute]]. 18 July 2013</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Rosnick |first1=David |title=Gains from Trade? The Net Effect of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement on US. Wages |url=http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/net-effect-of-the-tpp-on-us-wages |website=[[Center for Economic and Policy Research]] |access-date=September 28, 2021 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130910145111/http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/net-effect-of-the-tpp-on-us-wages |archive-date=2013-09-10 |date=September 2013 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

Economists Peter A. Petri and Michael G. Plummer challenge the view that TPP will primarily benefit the wealthy. Their analysis finds that "the gains from TPP appear to be fairly distributed—labour will gain relative to capital, and cost reductions will favour low-income households. Some workers will need to change jobs, but they constitute a small fraction of normal job churn in any given year, and the national benefits argue for generous compensation for their adjustment costs. The agreement will also benefit workers in TPP's poorest member countries."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voxeu.org/article/economics-tpp-winners-and-losers|title=Economics of the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Distributional impact|website=VoxEU.org|date=30 April 2016|access-date=22 May 2016}}</ref> Research by Harvard economist Robert Z. Lawrence finds that the "percentage gains for labor income from the TPP will be slightly greater than the gains to capital income. Households in all quintiles will benefit by similar percentages, but once differences in spending shares are taken into account, the percentage gains to poor and middle-class households will be slightly larger than the gains to households at the top."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://piie.com/publications/working-papers/adjustment-and-income-distribution-impacts-trans-pacific-partnership|title=Adjustment and Income Distribution Impacts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership {{!}} PIIE|website=piie.com|date=23 March 2016|access-date=24 May 2016|archive-date=17 May 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160517232445/https://piie.com/publications/working-papers/adjustment-and-income-distribution-impacts-trans-pacific-partnership|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Why the TPP has benefits for workers that far outweighs its costs |url=https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/why-the-tpp-has-benefits-for-workers-that-far-outweigh-its-costs/ |publisher=World Economic Forum |access-date=24 May 2016}}</ref> An opinion piece by Ed Gerwin in ''The Wall Street Journal'' argues that the TPP agreement benefits small businesses in the US.<ref name="WSJ11272015" />

Economists [[David Autor]], David Dorn and [[Gordon Hanson|Gordon H. Hanson]], who have extensively studied US labor markets adjustments to [[China shock|trade competition shocks caused by China]],<ref>{{cite journal |first1=David H. |last1=Autor |first2=David |last2=Dorn |first3=Gordon H. |last3=Hanson |year=2016 |title=The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade |journal=Annual Review of Economics |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=205–240 |doi=10.1146/annurev-economics-080315-015041 |s2cid=1415485 |url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w21906.pdf }}</ref> support TPP.<ref name=":10">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/03/12/why-obamas-key-trade-deal-with-asia-would-actually-be-good-for-american-workers/|title=Why Obama's key trade deal with Asia would actually be good for American workers|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=24 May 2016}}</ref> They argue that TPP "would promote trade in knowledge-intensive services in which U.S. companies exert a strong comparative advantage", note that "killing the TPP would do little to bring factory work back to America" and argue that it would pressure China to raise regulatory rules and standards to those of TPP members.<ref name=":10" />

According to the [[United States International Trade Commission|U.S. International Trade Commission]], the TPP will have positive effects on the U.S. economy as a whole, with unskilled labor reaping 25% of the gains, skilled workers 41% and business owners 34%.<ref name=":25">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/business/economy/why-dropping-the-trans-pacific-partnership-may-be-a-bad-idea.html|title=Why Dropping the Trans-Pacific Partnership May Be a Bad Idea|last=Porter|first=Eduardo|date=26 July 2016|newspaper=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=27 July 2016}}</ref>

===Macroeconomics===
==== World Bank report ====
[[World Bank]] found that if ratified by signatories, the TPP "agreement could raise GDP in member countries by an average of 1.1 percent by 2030. It could also increase member countries' trade by 11 percent by 2030, and represent a boost to regional trade growth, which had slowed to about 5 percent, on average, during 2010-14 from about 10 percent during 1990-07."<ref name=":1">{{cite web|url=http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/GEP/GEP2016a/Global-Economic-Prospects-January-2016-Implications-Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Agreement.pdf|title=Potential Macroeconomic Implications of the Trans-Pacific Partnership|publisher=World Bank}}</ref> The World Bank finds that the agreement will raise real wages in all signatories: "In the United States, for example, changes in real wages are expected to be small as unskilled and skilled wages increase by 0.4 and 0.6 percent, respectively, by 2030. In contrast, in Vietnam, TPP could increase the real wages of unskilled workers by more than 14 percent by 2030, as production intensive in unskilled labor (e.g. textiles) shifts to Vietnam."<ref name=":1" />

==== U.S. International Trade Commission estimate ====
The [[United States International Trade Commission|U.S. International Trade Commission]] estimates that "TPP would have positive effects, albeit small as a percentage of the overall size of the U.S. economy".<ref name=":2"/> There will be 128,000 more full-time jobs.<ref name=":25" /> By 2032, U.S. annual real income would increase by 0.23%, real GDP would be $42.7 billion or 0.15% higher, employment would be 0.07% higher, US exports would increase 1%, and imports would increase 1.1%.<ref name=":2"/> The report added, "TPP would generally establish trade-related disciplines that strengthen and harmonize regulations, increase certainty, and decrease trade costs for firms that trade and invest in the TPP region."<ref name=":2"/> Vietnam is often seen as the biggest beneficiary of TPP.<ref name=":4">{{cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-08/more-shoes-and-shrimp-less-china-reliance-for-vietnam-in-tpp|title=The Biggest Winner From TPP Trade Deal May Be Vietnam|last=svwriter|first=John Boudreau|website=Bloomberg.com|date=8 October 2015|access-date=24 May 2016}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{cite web|url=https://thediplomat.com/2016/03/why-vietnam-loves-the-trans-pacific-partnership/|title=Why Vietnam Loves the Trans-Pacific Partnership|last=Diplomat|first=Dien Luong, The|website=The Diplomat|access-date=24 May 2016}}</ref><ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last1=Green|first1=Michael J.|last2=Goodman|first2=Matthew P.|date=2 October 2015|title=After TPP: the Geopolitics of Asia and the Pacific|journal=The Washington Quarterly|volume=38|issue=4|pages=19–34|doi=10.1080/0163660X.2015.1125827|s2cid=155763676|issn=0163-660X}}</ref> The U.S. International Trade Commission identifies the following US industries as net beneficiaries of TPP: Passenger cars; Apparel, Dairy production; Retailers and Wholesalers; and Business services; and as net losers: Auto parts; Textiles; Soybean production; Transportation and tourism; and Chemicals and drugs.<ref name=":2"/><ref>{{cite news|url=https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/05/19/ten-winning-and-losing-industries-from-the-pacific-trade-deal/|title=Ten Winning and Losing Industries from the Pacific Trade Deal|last=Mauldin|first=William|newspaper=Wall Street Journal|date=19 May 2016|access-date=24 May 2016}}</ref>

==== Office of the Chief Economist at Global Affairs Canada report ====
According to a report by the Office of the Chief Economist at Global Affairs Canada, ratification of TPP would increase Canada's GDP by $4.3 billion by 2040.<ref name=":32"/><ref name=":33">{{cite news|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/not-joining-tpp-will-cost-canada-billions-in-economic-growth-report/article31809986/|title=Not joining TPP will cost Canada billions in economic growth: report|access-date=10 September 2016}}</ref> This is primarily due to the preferential access it would receive to markets in the Asia-Pacific rim.<ref name=":32"/><ref name=":33" />  According to the report, ratification by the other TPP signatories but a failure by Canada to ratify the agreement would lead Canada to face estimated GDP losses of $5.3 billion by 2040.<ref name=":32"/><ref name=":33" />

==== Peterson Institute for International Economics report ====
Economists Peter A. Petri and Michael G. Plummer of the [[Peterson Institute for International Economics]] project that the TPP would increase incomes in the U.S. by $131 billion annually, or 0.5 percent of GDP.  Exports from the U.S. would increase by $357 billion annually, or 9.1 percent, as a result of the agreement.<ref name=":12">{{cite news|last1=Hufbauer|first1=Gary Clyde|title=Column: Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership isn't a bum deal|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-why-the-trans-pacific-partnership-isnt-a-bum-deal|publisher=PBS|date=5 February 2016|access-date=7 February 2016}}</ref>  However, two [[Tufts University]] economists argue that the research by Petri relies on unrealistic assumptions such as full employment: lost jobs will be immediately replaced in other industrial sectors.<ref name="TUJC16Jan20162" /> According to Harvard economist [[Dani Rodrik]], "Petri and Plummer assume that labor markets are sufficiently flexible that job losses in adversely affected parts of the economy are necessarily offset by job gains elsewhere. Unemployment is ruled out from the start – a built-in outcome of the model that TPP proponents often fudge."<ref name=":3"/> Rodrik notes that "the Petri-Plummer model is squarely rooted in decades of academic trade modeling, which makes a sharp distinction between microeconomic effects (shaping resource allocation across sectors) and macroeconomic effects (related to overall levels of demand and employment). In this tradition, trade liberalization is a microeconomic "shock" that affects the composition of employment, but not its overall level."<ref name=":3"/>

==== Tufts University report ====
[[Tufts University]] researchers project the TPP would have a negative impact on employment: 450,000 US jobs, 75,000 Japanese jobs, 58,000 Canadian jobs and 5,000 New Zealand jobs would be lost by 2025.<ref name="TUJC16Jan20162">[http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/16-01Capaldo-IzurietaTPP.pdf Trading Down:Unemployment, Inequality and Other Risks of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190817001710/http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/16-01Capaldo-IzurietaTPP.pdf |date=17 August 2019 }} J. Capaldo and A. Izurieta, Global Development and Environment Institute, Working Paper No. 16–1 Jan (2016)</ref> According to the report, 771,000 jobs would be lost in total and positive economic effects would be negligible for participating countries.<ref name="TUJC16Jan20162" /><ref name=nytimes01Feb2016JC>[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/business/international/economists-sharply-split-over-trade-deal-effects.html Economists Sharply Split Over Trade Deal Effects] J. Calmes, The New York Times, 1 February 2016</ref>

Harvard economist [[Robert Z. Lawrence]] says that the model used by the Tufts researchers "is simply not suited for credibly predicting the effects of the TPP" and argues that the model used by Petri and Plummer is superior.<ref name=":0"/> Lawrence argues that the model used by the Tufts researchers "does not have the granularity that allows it to estimate variables such as exports, imports, foreign direct investment, and changes in industrial structure. As a result, its predictions ignore the benefits to the TPP economies that occur through increased specialization, the realization of scale economies, and improved consumer choice."<ref name=":0"/> Lawrence also notes that the model used by the Tufts researchers finds that the TPP will cause GDP to fall by 5.24% in non-TPP developing countries, such as China, India, and Indonesia, which Lawrence is highly skeptical of: "It is not believable that a trade agreement of this magnitude could cause the rest of the world to plummet into recession."<ref name=":0"/> Harvard economist [[Dani Rodrik]], a well-known skeptic of globalization, says that the Tufts researchers do "a poor job of explaining how their model works, and the particulars of their simulation are somewhat murky... the Capaldo framework lacks sectoral and country detail; its behavioral assumptions remain opaque; and its extreme Keynesian assumptions sit uneasily with its medium-term perspective."<ref name=":3"/>

[[Fredrik Erixon]] and Matthias Bauer of the [[ECIPE|European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)]] write that the Tufts analysis has such serious flaws "that its results should neither be regarded reliable nor realistic."<ref name=":30"/> They write that Tufts model is "by and large a demand-driven model that does not make efforts to capture the supply-side effects of trade, which are the effects that are proven to be the core positive effects of trade liberalisation. Equally problematic, the model is not designed to assess the effect on trade from trade agreements – in fact, the model is profoundly ill suited for such an exercise. No trade economist, regardless what school of thought he or she comes from, has ever used this model to make estimates of trade. The reason is simple: if a model cannot predict the effects on the flows and profile of trade as a consequence of trade liberalisation, it is of no use at all."<ref name=":30"/> They add, "In Capaldo’s analysis, structural change and the emergence of new industries do not play a role at all. Capaldo implicitly assumes that an economy with its labour and capital does not respond and adjust to new circumstances. New competition only leads to new unemployment. In addition, the impact of lower barriers on international commerce on product and process innovation is neglected. Finally, Capaldo does not account for the impact of competition on the cost of production and final consumer prices."<ref name=":30"/>

According to the Congressional Research Service, "The Tufts study has drawn particular criticism as an unconventional framework for analyzing trade agreements, whereas Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models, such as that used in the Peterson study are standard in trade policy analysis."<ref name=":8"/> Fabio Ghironi, Professor in Economics at the [[University of Washington]], describes the models used by the World Bank and the Peterson Institute in more favorable terms than the Tufts analysis.<ref name="auto1"/>

=== Effects on the European Union ===
The EU is trying to form trade agreements with each country that is part of the TPP: since 2013, there have been talks of a free trade agreement between the EU and Japan, and in 2015 the EU presented its new strategy to improve trade in the Asia-Pacific entitled "Trade for All."<ref name="European Parliamentary Research Service">{{cite web|url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/582028/EPRS_BRI(2016)582028_EN.pdf|title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Potential regional and global impacts|author= Krisztina Binder|date=May 2016}}</ref>

=== Liberalization ===
According to an analysis by the Cato Institute of the chapters of the TPP, 15 chapters have a liberalizing impact, 5 have a protectionist impact, and 2 have a neutral impact.<ref name=":34">{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/should-free-traders-support-trans-pacific-partnership-assessment-americas|title=Should Free Traders Support the Trans- Pacific Partnership? An Assessment of America's Largest Preferential Trade Agreement|date=12 September 2016|access-date=13 September 2016}}</ref> Considered as a whole, the terms of the TPP are net liberalizing.<ref name=":34" />

There have been conflicting arguments on whether or not the TPP aims to increase the liberalization of trade. For arguments that propose that the TPP succeeds at liberalizing trade among the participating nations, there is a question of whether or not this causes a positive or a negative net change. Some scholars argue that participatory members of the TPP believe that such membership is a utilitarian and practical method toward new trade liberalization.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lewis|first=Meredith|year=2011|title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership: New Paradigm or Wolf in Sheep's Clothing?|ssrn=1908411|journal=Boston College International & Comparative Law Review|volume=34}}</ref> Scholars Peter Petri and Michael Plummer describe the TPP as a "dynamic process - and example of competitive liberalization," and this liberalization described can result in a new type of governance for the Asia-Pacific, as well as transnational trade.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Petri|first1=Peter|last2=Plummer|first2=Michael|year=2012|title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Asia-Pacific Integration: Policy Implications|journal=Peterson Institute for International Economics Policy Brief}}</ref>

According to analyst and economist B.R. Williams, the United States has a large role in the reduction of trade barriers and increased U.S. investment. Williams explains that the U.S. aims to create a "broader platform for trade liberalization, particularly throughout the Asia-Pacific region."<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Williams|first=B.R.|year=2013|title=Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) countries: Comparative trade and economic analysis|journal=Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service}}</ref> Scholars C. Li and J. Whalley explore a numerical approach in explaining the liberalizing effects of the TPP. Li and Whalley uses a quantitative equilibrium simulation to explore the effects of the TPP on the liberalization of trade and new markets.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Li|first1=C|last2=Whalley|first2=J|year=2014|title=China and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Numerical Simulation Assessment of the Effects Involved|journal=World Economics|volume=37|issue=2|pages=169–192|doi=10.1111/twec.12123|s2cid=154672692}}</ref>

=== China ===
According to a 2020 study, the TPP pushed [[China]] to introduce its own internal liberal market reforms. Reform-minded elites in China used the TPP to justify reform.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Lin|first1=Alex Yu-Ting|last2=Katada|first2=Saori N.|date=2020-08-07|title=Striving for greatness: status aspirations, rhetorical entrapment, and domestic reforms|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2020.1801486|journal=Review of International Political Economy|volume=29 |pages=175–201|doi=10.1080/09692290.2020.1801486|s2cid=225371407|issn=0969-2290|url-access=subscription}}</ref> In anticipation of China's exclusion from the agreement, exposed Chinese firms began investing in production in TPP member states.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Gulotty|first1=Robert|last2=Li|first2=Xiaojun|date=2019-07-30|title=Anticipating exclusion: Global supply chains and Chinese business responses to the Trans-Pacific Partnership|url=https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2019.8|journal=Business and Politics|volume=22|issue=2|pages=253–278|doi=10.1017/bap.2019.8|s2cid=201359183|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

In May 2020, Chinese Premier [[Li Keqiang]] said that China has a positive and open attitude toward joining the [[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership|CPTPP]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3092143/chinas-interest-trans-pacific-trade-deal-met-scepticism-those|title=China's interest in trans-Pacific trade deal met with scepticism by those who helped negotiate it|first=Finbarr|last=Bermingham|work=South China Morning Post|date=2020-07-08}}</ref>

In November 2020, China and fourteen Asia-Pacific nations signed a trade deal, the [[Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/16/economy/rcep-trade-agreement-intl-hnk/index.html|title=China signs huge Asia Pacific trade deal with 14 countries|first1=Jill |last1=Disis |first2=Laura |last2=He|website=CNN|date=16 November 2020 }}</ref>

== Geopolitics ==
TPP would have increased the likelihood that Japan would undertake economic reforms to revive its economy, which coupled with potential South Korean accession to the TPP, could have had an economic impact on China. By making the Chinese economy less competitive and Chinese leadership less likely to write the rules of trade in East and Southeast Asia, the Chinese government would have been under great internal and external pressure to liberalize its economy.<ref name=":6"/> Japan's former prime minister, [[Shinzō Abe|Shinzo Abe]], believed that future Chinese accession to the TPP would have a major pacifying impact on the Asia-Pacific region.<ref name=":7"/> U.S. Trade Representative [[Michael Froman]] said that a failure to ratify the TPP would give China the opportunity to boost its exports and set labor and environmental standards in the fast-growing Asia Pacific region through the [[Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership]] (RCEP).<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-idUSKCN1090QZ |title=Killing TPP would hand China 'keys to the castle': U.S. trade representative |date=29 July 2016 |newspaper=Reuters |access-date=29 July 2016}}</ref>

South Korea did not participate in the TPP "largely out of a concern to maintain balance in its economic relations with China and the United States" but showed greater interest in joining after Japan, its biggest economic competitor, decided to participate.<ref name=":9" /> The Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, and Taiwan also reportedly considered and implemented various domestic reforms to improve their prospects for eventually joining.<ref name=":29" />

Since formal TPP negotiations began in 2010, China's attitude towards TPP has:

<blockquote>swung from disdain to suspicion to cautious embrace... Conclusion of a TPP agreement in early October has sparked a lively debate in Beijing, with the weight of elite opinion seeming to tilt toward eventual membership; for example, the head of the Chinese-sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), Jin Liqun, announced his support during a speech in Washington shortly after the TPP deal was announced.<ref name=":9" /></blockquote>

The TPP may give renewed impetus to trade negotiations among China, Japan, and Korea, and increase the likelihood of [[Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership]] (RCEP) which could provide a possible pathway to a [[free trade area]] of the Asia-Pacific.<ref name=":9" /> The 2017 decision by United States President Donald Trump to withdraw from the TPP strengthened China's alternative model of the RCEP.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Mitter |first=Rana |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1141442704 |title=China's good war : how World War II is shaping a new nationalism |date=2020 |publisher=The Belknap Press of [[Harvard University Press]] |isbn=978-0-674-98426-4 |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |pages=8 |oclc=1141442704}}</ref>

In January 2016, the United States [[National Association of Manufacturers]] announced its support for TPP, saying "without such an agreement, the United States would be ceding economic leadership to other global powers, letting them set the rules of economic engagement in the region".<ref>{{cite news |url=https://thehill.com/policy/finance/264631-manufacturers-endorse-tpp/ |title=Big Endorsement for Obama Trade Deal |newspaper=The Hill |last1=Needham |first1=Vicki |access-date=4 January 2016}}</ref>

A 2016 study by [[University of Maryland, College Park|University of Maryland]] political scientists Todd Allee and Andrew Lugg suggested that if the TPP became standard legal text, it would shape future trade cooperation and agreements.<ref name=":24" />

An October 2016 survey of 746 [[international relations]] scholars showed that 71% supported the TPP, 18% opposed the TPP, 9% were neutral, and 2% were undecided.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://trip.wm.edu/charts/#/bargraph/42/6771 |title=TRIP Data Viewer |website=trip.wm.edu |access-date=26 October 2016}}</ref>

=== United States considerations ===
The original TPP was thought by some to likely bring China's neighbours closer to the United States and reduce their dependence on Chinese trade.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":5" /><ref name=":9" /><ref name=":6">{{cite web |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/07/china-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-obama-us-trade-xi/ |title=What Will the TPP Mean for China? |website=Foreign Policy |date=7 October 2015 |access-date=24 May 2016}}</ref><ref name=":7">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/world/asia/trans-pacific-partnership-china-australia.html |title=U.S. Allies See Trans-Pacific Partnership as a Check on China |last=Perlez |first=Jane |date=6 October 2015|newspaper=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |access-date=24 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/26627/trade_is_a_national_security_imperative.html |title=Trade Is a National Security Imperative - Harvard - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs |website=belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu |access-date=24 May 2016 |archive-date=7 August 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160807185910/http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/26627/trade_is_a_national_security_imperative.html |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/asia/geopolitical-necessity-trade/ |title=The Geopolitical Necessity of Trade |last=Boot |first=Max |date=29 April 2016 }}</ref><ref name=":26">{{Cite news |url=http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-death-tpp-the-best-thing-ever-happened-china-19232?page=show |title=The Death of TPP: The Best Thing That Ever Happened to China |last=Magnusson |first=Earl Anthony Wayne, Oliver |newspaper=The National Interest |language=en |access-date=31 January 2017}}</ref><ref name="foreignpolicy.com">{{Cite web |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/03/this-isnt-realpolitik-this-is-amateur-hour/|title=This Isn't Realpolitik. This Is Amateur Hour. |website=Foreign Policy|date=3 May 2017 |access-date=4 May 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/06/trump-will-be-haunted-by-the-ghost-of-tpp-in-asia/ |title=Trump Will Be Haunted by the Ghost of TPP |website=Foreign Policy |date=6 November 2017 |access-date=22 November 2017}}</ref> If ratified, the TPP would have strengthened American influence on future rules for the global economy. US Secretary of Defense [[Ash Carter]] claimed the passage of the TPP to be as valuable to the United States as the creation of another aircraft carrier.<ref name=":9" /> President Obama has argued "if we don't pass this agreement—if America doesn't write those rules—then countries like China will".<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/business/international/trans-pacific-trade-deal-tpp-vietnam-labor-rights.html |title=Trans-Pacific Partnership Text Released, Waving Green Flag for Debate |last=Calmes |first=Jackie |date=5 November 2015 |newspaper=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |access-date=24 May 2016}}</ref> According to the Congressional Research Service, "many Asian policymakers—correctly or not—could interpret a failure of TPP in the United States as a symbol of declining U.S. interest in the region and inability to assert leadership... failure to conclude TPP could, in effect, allow China to shape regional rules of commerce and diplomacy through its own trade and investment initiatives, potentially creating regional rules and norms less beneficial for U.S. interests."<ref name=":8"/> [[Michael Green (political expert)|Michael J. Green]] and Matthew P. Goodman argue that "history will be unforgiving if TPP fails... If Congress rejects TPP, trying to negotiate a similar arrangement in Asia would reopen demands on the United States—and in the meantime, would likely give impetus to alternative arrangements like RCEP that exclude the United States. Momentum behind the U.S.-led international order would shift to momentum against it. Future generations of historians will take note of U.S. leadership at this moment."<ref name=":9" /> Dan Ikenson, director of Cato's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, argued in July 2016 that the "failure of Congress to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership this year would do more to subvert U.S. regional and global interests than anything China is capable of doing."<ref name=":29">{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/the-trans-pacific-partnership-is-essential-to-regional-peace |title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership Is Essential to Regional Peace and Global Prosperity |date=14 July 2016 |access-date=20 July 2016}}</ref> [[Stephen Walt|Stephen M. Walt]], professor of international relations at Harvard University, writing after the Trump Administration abandoned the TPP, described the TPP as "a key institution that would have bound a number of Asian countries more tightly to the United States".<ref name="foreignpolicy.com"/>

=== Non-TPP party opinions ===
On 30 January 2015 [[Philip Hammond]], the former [[Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom]], described the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership as "potentially important liberalising steps forward".<ref>Hammond, P., [https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretarys-speech-on-the-uk-in-asia-pacific "Foreign Secretary's speech on the UK in Asia Pacific"] Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UK, 30 January 2015, accessed 8 October 2015</ref>

The [[European Centre for International Political Economy]] (ECIPE), a think tank on European policies, predicted in 2012 that the TPP would be a "deadly threat to European exporters of agricultural products in TPP countries".<ref>Messerlin, Patrick, [http://www.ecipe.org/media/publication_pdfs/Messerlin_TPP-EU_EN05212.pdf The TPP and the EU policy in East Asia], ECIPE Policy Brief, no.11/2012, European Centre for International Political Economy, {{ISSN|1653-8994}}.</ref> ECIPE has said in 2014 that TPP "[would] be the first 'competing' [[economic integration]] that is large enough to have a considerable negative impact on Europe. In the long-term, the negative effects [would] come from dynamic impact, e.g. on investment, productivity and competitiveness".<ref name=ecipe14>Matthias Bauer, Fredrik Erixon, Martina Ferracane and Hosuk Lee-Makiyama [http://www.ecipe.org/app/uploads/2014/12/PB09_1.pdf TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP: A challenge to Europe] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160315115352/http://www.ecipe.org/app/uploads/2014/12/PB09_1.pdf |date=15 March 2016 }} ECIPE Policy Briefs, No.9/2014, page 1-13, European Centre for International Political Economy, {{ISSN|1653-8994}}</ref>
[[Pascal Lamy]] called the TPP "the last of big old-style trade agreements".<ref name=ecipe14/>{{rp|2}}

== Criticism{{anchor|Protests}} ==
{{Commons category|Demonstrations and protests against the TPP}}
{{Commons category|Demonstrations and protests against the TTIP}}
In 2014, Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist [[Paul Krugman]] said "there isn't a compelling case for this deal, from either a global or a national point of view."<ref name="NYT-20140227">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html|title=No Big Deal|last=Krugman|first=Paul|date=27 February 2014|work=[[The New York Times]]|author-link=Paul Krugman|access-date=28 February 2014}}</ref>

=== Currency manipulation ===
Some critics and even supporters of the TPP wanted the deal to contain measures that would crack down on nations who engage in alleged [[currency manipulation]], notably China.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/chinas-impact-looms-large-u-s-debates-trade-deals|title=China's impact looms large as U.S. debates its own trade deals|website=[[PBS]]|date=20 May 2015|language=en-US|access-date=22 July 2016}}</ref> However, [[Daniel W. Drezner|Daniel Drezner]], professor of international politics at Tufts University, has argued that the trade deal was never likely to include restrictions on currency manipulation, as it would have restricted U.S. monetary policy.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/08/is-hillary-clinton-right-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership/|title=Is Hillary Clinton right about the Trans-Pacific Partnership?|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=22 July 2016}}</ref> Harvard economist [[Jeffrey Frankel]] has argued that the inclusion of currency manipulation language in TPP would be a mistake.<ref name=":22">{{cite web|url=http://econbrowser.com/archives/2015/06/the-top-ten-reasons-why-trade-agreements-should-not-cover-currency-manipulation|title="The Top Ten Reasons Why Trade Agreements Should Not Cover Currency Manipulation" {{!}} Econbrowser|website=econbrowser.com|date=12 June 2015 |access-date=22 July 2016}}</ref> Frankel noted that currency manipulation would be hard to enforce (in part because it is impossible to tell whether a currency is overvalued or undervalued); "currency manipulation" can often be legitimate; China, often alleged to be a major currency manipulator, is not party to the TPP; currency manipulation accusations are often meritless; and because it would restrict U.S. monetary policy.<ref name=":22" />

=== Length and complexity ===
In his [[Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign|2016 presidential campaign]], then-candidate [[Donald Trump]] criticized the TPP agreement for being too long and complicated, saying "[i]t's 5,600 pages long, so complex that nobody's read it."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-is-upset-1447374770 |title=Donald Trump Is Upset |date=13 November 2015 |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |issn=0099-9660 |access-date=2 August 2016}}</ref> Vermont U.S. Senator [[Bernie Sanders]] claimed that the "TPP is much more than a 'free trade' agreement."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-trade/ |title=Bernie Sanders on Trade |last=FeelTheBern.org |language=en-US |access-date=2 August 2016}}</ref>

However, [[Georgetown University]] Professor Marc L. Busch and [[McGill University]] Professor Krzysztof J. Pelc note that modern trade deals are long and complex because they often tackle [[non-tariff barriers to trade]], such as different standards and regulations, in addition to [[tariff]]s. Due to steadily decreasing tariff barriers since WWII, countries have become increasingly likely to enact trade barriers in the form of non-tariff barriers. National firms often lobby their own governments to enact regulations that are designed to keep out foreign firms. The TPP addresses many of these "disguised restrictions on trade" by, for instance, "basing these measures on agreed-upon science; making the process of formulating regulations more transparent; and giving foreign exporters opportunities to offer substantive input in the formulation of these measures."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/02/yes-the-tpp-agreement-is-over-5000-pages-long-heres-why-thats-a-good-thing/|title=Yes, the TPP agreement is over 5,000 pages long. Here's why that's a good thing.|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2 August 2016}}</ref>

=== Secrecy of negotiations ===
Until being finalized, negotiations for the TPP were conducted with significant secrecy. Drafts of the agreement were kept [[classified information|classified]] during negotiations, and access to the working text was significantly restricted even for government officials, including the [[United States Congress]]; and business representatives involved in the talks.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/secrecy-eroding-support-for-trade-pact-critics-say-117581|title=Extreme secrecy eroding support for Obama's trade pact|publisher=Politico|author=Edward-Isaac Dovere|author-link=Edward-Isaac Dovere|date=4 May 2015|access-date=22 July 2016}}</ref> Despite this, some sections of TPP drafts were leaked to the public by [[WikiLeaks]], which published an intellectual property chapter draft in 2013.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/13/wikileaks-trans-pacific-partnership-chapter-secret |title=WikiLeaks publishes secret draft chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership |first=Steven |last=Musil |work=The Guardian (UK) |date=12 November 2013 |access-date=15 November 2013}}</ref>

In 2012, critics such as Public Citizen's [[Global Trade Watch]], a consumer advocacy group, called for more open negotiations in regard to the agreement. U.S. Trade Representative [[Ron Kirk]] responded that he believed the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducted "the most engaged and transparent process as we possibly could", but that "some measure of discretion and confidentiality" are needed "to preserve negotiating strength and to encourage our partners to be willing to put issues on the table they may not otherwise."<ref name="reuters_1">{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-kirk-idUSBRE84C0AQ20120514?feedType=RSS&feedName=everything&virtualBrandChannel=11563|title=Some secrecy needed in trade talks: Ron Kirk|work=[[Reuters]]|date=13 May 2012|last=Palmer|first=Doug|access-date=2 July 2017|archive-date=19 October 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151019110203/http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/us-usa-trade-kirk-idUSBRE84C0AQ20120514?feedType=RSS&feedName=everything&virtualBrandChannel=11563|url-status=live}}</ref> He dismissed the "tension" as natural and noted that when the [[Free Trade Area of the Americas]] drafts were released, negotiators were subsequently unable to reach a final agreement.<ref name="reuters_1" />

On 23 May 2012, U.S. Senator [[Ron Wyden]], Democrat of Oregon, introduced {{USBill|112|s|3225}}, which would have required the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to disclose its TPP documents to all members of Congress.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3225| title=S. 3225 (112th)| access-date=30 May 2012| author=112th Congress (2012)| date=23 May 2012| work=Legislation| publisher=GovTrack.us| quote=A bill to require the United States Trade Representative to provide documents relating to trade negotiations to Members of Congress and their staff upon request, and for other purposes.}}</ref> Had it passed, Wyden said that the bill would increase Congressional access to information about USTR activity.<ref name="Wyden20120523">{{USCongRec|2012|S3517|date=23 May 2012}}</ref>

Michael R. Wessel, former commissioner on the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission claimed in May 2015 that "cleared advisors" like himself were "prohibited from sharing publicly the criticisms we’ve lodged about specific proposals and approaches". He claimed that only portions of the text had been provided, "to be read under the watchful eye of a USTR official", that access on secure government-run website did not contain the most-up-to-date information, and that for cleared advisors to get that information, he had "to travel to certain government facilities and sign in to read the materials" and "even then, the administration determines what we can and cannot review and, often, they provide carefully edited summaries rather than the actual underlying text, which is critical to really understanding the consequences of the agreement."<ref>Michael Wessel [https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/tpp-elizabeth-warren-labor-118068/ I've Read Obama's Trade Deal. Elizabeth Warren is Right to be Concerned.] Politico.com 19 May 2015, accessed 8 October 2015</ref>

In June 2015, U.S. Senator [[Rand Paul]], Republican of Kentucky, opposed the bill to [[Fast track (trade)|fast-track]] the congressional ratification of the TPP on the basis of the trade agreement's secrecy.<ref>{{cite news|title=Rand Paul demands White House release trade deal text immediately|last=Shabad|first=Rebecca|date=6 June 2015|work=The Hill|url=https://thehill.com/policy/finance/244220-rand-paul-demands-white-house-release-trade-deal-text-immediately/}}</ref>

===Indigenous rights===
In late June 2015, several prominent Māori figures including Dr Papaarangi Reid, [[Moana Jackson]], Rikirangi Gage, Angeline Greensill, [[Hone Harawira]] and [[Moana Maniapoto]] filed an urgent claim with the [[Waitangi Tribunal]],<ref name="Te Ao June 2015">{{cite news |title=High profile Māori file Waitangi Tribunal claim over TPPA |url=https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2015/06/25/high-profile-maori-file-waitangi-tribunal-claim-over-tppa/ |access-date=21 May 2024 |work=Te Ao Māori News |publisher=[[Whakaata Māori]] |date=25 June 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240518035525/https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2015/06/25/high-profile-maori-file-waitangi-tribunal-claim-over-tppa/ |archive-date=18 May 2024}}</ref> a standing commission of inquiry established in 1975 to investigate the [[New Zealand Crown]]'s breaches of the [[Treaty of Waitangi]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Ruru |first1=Karanama |title=The Waitangi Tribunal, explained |url=https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350201186/waitangi-tribunal-explained |access-date=21 May 2024 |work=[[Stuff (website)|Stuff]] |date=9 March 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240403031616/https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350201186/waitangi-tribunal-explained |archive-date=3 April 2024|url-status=live}}</ref> The plaintiffs claimed that the way the New Zealand Government was negotiating the TPP breached the [[Treaty of Waitangi]] because its ratification  would not require the consent of the [[New Zealand Parliament]], the lack of Māori involvement in the negotiation process and the lack of any legal obligation to assess the TPP's implications for the Treaty of Waitangi.<ref name="Te Ao June 2015"/> In response to the claim, the Government argued that the secret nature of the TPP negotiations would allow it to negotiate in the national interest, had taken steps to consider Māori interests under the Treaty and that it has been consulting with Māori in relation to the TPP.<ref>{{cite web |title=Waitangi Tribunal claim over New Zealand's participation in the TPPA |url=https://www.ajpark.com/insights/waitangi-tribunal-claim-over-new-zealands-participation-in-the-tppa/ |publisher=AJ Park |access-date=21 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231206101126/https://www.ajpark.com/insights/waitangi-tribunal-claim-over-new-zealands-participation-in-the-tppa/ |archive-date=6 December 2023 |date=20 July 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref> In early May 2016, the Waitangi Tribunal backed the inclusion of a Treaty of Waitangi clause in the finalised TPP trade deal. However, the Tribunal expressed concern that a clause allowing foreign investors to bring claims against the New Zealand Government could affect the Crown's willingness or ability to meet its Treaty obligations.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Haunui-Thompson |first1=Shannon |title=Waitangi Tribunal backs TPP treaty clause |url=https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/303148/waitangi-tribunal-backs-tpp-treaty-clause |access-date=21 May 2024 |work=[[RNZ]] |date=5 May 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240518035228/https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/303148/waitangi-tribunal-backs-tpp-treaty-clause |archive-date=18 May 2024|url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Industry influence ===
U.S. Senator [[Elizabeth Warren]], Democrat of Massachusetts, has alleged that corporations and industry exert disproportionate influence on U.S. trade negotiators.<ref name=":13">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/18/warrens-claim-that-advisory-committees-formed-during-drafting-of-trans-pacific-partnership/|title=Warren's claim that advisory committees 'formed' during drafting of Trans-Pacific Partnership|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=20 July 2016}}</ref> She asserted in July 2016 that 85% of seats on U.S. trade advisory committees were held by "senior corporation executives or industry lobbyists", and that the members of the committees "whisper in the ear" of negotiators.<ref name=":13" />

Michelle Ye Hee Lee, a fact-checker for ''The Washington Post'', wrote that Warren used "misleading language" in describing the TPP. While Warren implied that "28 trade advisory committees were formed" specifically to influence the TPP, the advisory committees were actually created as part of the [[Trade Act of 1974]]; only the membership of the trade committees had changed during the Obama administration and the early phases of the TPP. Regarding Warren's claim that trade advisers secretly "whisper in the ear of our trade negotiators", Lee wrote: "while the direct meetings take place in private, committees still have to submit written reports to Congress and provide written recommendations and advice that are made public."<ref name=":13" /> Furthermore, Lee wrote, "it is true that industry representatives make up a large number of the total membership, but it is worth noting that there is a labor committee in the second tier, labor representatives in the first tier and that the industry groups have a narrow focus (to give technical advice)."<ref name=":13" />

In response to criticisms about transparency and the large representation from industry representatives, USTR announced it would create a Public Interest Trade Advisory Committee.<ref name=":13" />

=== Non-compete clause ===
[[Dean Baker]] argued that Article 18.78, under which countries should ensure that they protect [[trade secrets]] and impose criminal procedures for violators, could be used to enforce [[non-compete agreement]]s.<ref name=":16" /> Baker points out that [[California]]'s success can partly be attributed to the fact that the state did not allow for the enforcement of non-compete agreements, making it easy for tech workers to quit their jobs and start to work for another company.<ref name=":16">[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/will-the-trans-pacific-pa_b_9878794.html Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership Turn Silicon Valley Into Detroit?] D. Baker, The Huffington Post, 9 May 2016</ref>

=== Criticisms from politicians and activists ===
In 2014, linguist and political activist [[Noam Chomsky]] warned that the TPP is "designed to carry forward the [[Neoliberalism|neoliberal]] project to maximize profit and domination, and to set the working people in the world in competition with one another so as to lower wages to increase insecurity."<ref>Zach Carter and Ryan Grim (13 January 2014). [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/13/noam-chomsky-obama-trans-pacific-partnership_n_4577495.html?ref=topbar "Noam Chomsky: Obama Trade Deal A 'Neoliberal Assault' To Further Corporate 'Domination'"]. ''[[The Huffington Post]]''. Retrieved 13 January 2014.</ref> Senator [[Bernie Sanders]] ([[Independent politician|I]]-[[Vermont|VT]]) argues that trade agreements like the TPP "have ended up devastating working families and enriching large corporations."<ref>[https://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/preventing-tpp-essential-to-all-u-s-workers-118892611809 "Preventing TPP essential to all U.S. workers"]. ''[[The Ed Show]]'', 16 January 2014. Retrieved 23 January 2014.</ref> [[AFL-CIO]] head [[Richard Trumka]] criticized the trade deal.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/2015/4/20/8445991/afl-cio-tpp-obama-trumka|title=AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka explains why labor unions hate Obama’s trade deal|website=Vox|date=April 20, 2015}}</ref>

== See also ==
<!--Please respect alphabetical order-->
{{div col}}
* [[Association of Southeast Asian Nations]]
** [[Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership]] (RCEP - ASEAN plus 6)
* [[Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act]] (COICA)
* [[Counterfeit]]
* [[Digital rights]]
* [[Fast track (trade)|Trade Promotional Authority]]
* [[Foreign trade of the United States]]
* [[Forum of East Asia–Latin America Cooperation]] (FEALAC)
* [[Free trade]]
* [[Free trade area]]
* [[Generic drug]]
* [[Indo-Pacific Economic Framework]] (IPEF)
* [[Non-tariff barriers to trade]]
* [[Office of the United States Trade Representative]]
* [[Protect IP Act]] (PIPA)
* [[Stop Online Piracy Act]] (SOPA)
* [[Sustainable Development Goals]] (SDG)
* [[Tariff]]
* [[Trade in Services Agreement]] (TISA)
* [[Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement]]
* [[United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)]]
{{div col end}}

== Notes ==
{{reflist|group=Note}}

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{wikisource|Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement}}
{{Commons category}}
{{Library resources box}}
* [http://tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text Agreement online text in full] ([http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/TPP_All-Chapters.zip zip file] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170411150619/http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/TPP_All-Chapters.zip |date=11 April 2017 }}), from the depositary
* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/05/we-made-president-obamas-big-tpp-trade-deal-searchable/?postshare=5371446749920151 Searchable link to text]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20151118232341/https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership Fully highlightable, annotatable, and shareable text] on  [[Medium (publishing platform)|Medium]].
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20151010083924/https://ustr.gov/tpp/ U.S. TPP site]
* Ian F. Fergusson, Bruce Vaughn. [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40502.pdf The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement] – Congressional Research Service report for Congress. 21 pages, 12 December 2011 (PDF).
* [https://prospect.org/article/why-losing-tpp-wont-hurt-us-asia "Why Losing TPP Won't Hurt the U.S. in Asia"] By Clyde Prestowitz, ''[[The American Prospect]]'', June 17, 2015

{{Foreign relations of Chile}}
{{Economy of Malaysia}}
{{Free trade agreements of New Zealand}}
{{Free trade agreements of the United States}}
{{Foreign relations of Vietnam}}
{{Trump executive actions}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Trans-Pacific Partnership| ]]
[[Category:114th United States Congress]]
[[Category:Classified documents]]
[[Category:Free trade agreements of Japan]]
[[Category:Free trade agreements of New Zealand]]
[[Category:Free trade agreements of Singapore]]
[[Category:Presidency of Barack Obama]]
[[Category:Proposed free trade agreements]]
[[Category:Trade blocs]]
[[Category:Treaties concluded in 2016]]
[[Category:Treaties not entered into force]]