TPP Withdrawal and U.S. Open Market Trade Policy
This policy paper examines the consequences of President Trump's 2017 withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and its implications for U.S. open-market trade policy. Beginning with the post–World War II evolution of international trade institutions—including GATT, the WTO, and NAFTA—the paper traces how successive administrations built toward a multilateral trading framework before the TPP withdrawal reversed that trajectory. It analyzes the pros and cons of TPP membership, the stalled NAFTA renegotiations, and the risks of ceding East Asian economic leadership to China. The paper concludes with policy recommendations focused on reducing non-trade barriers, reforming subsidies, and revisiting the TPP to secure transparent, enforceable trade rules that advance economic freedom and global market integration.
- Introduction and Executive Summary: TPP withdrawal and the open-market policy problem
- Background: U.S. Trade Policy After World War II: GATT, WTO, and evolution of U.S. trade
- Government Interest: The TPP and NAFTA Renegotiations: TPP scope and NAFTA stalemate under Trump
- Previous Policy Decisions and Their Consequences: NAFTA demands, Canadian lumber, and TPP subsidies
- Policy Options: Pros and Cons of the TPP: Economic benefits and drawbacks of TPP membership
- Policy Recommendations: Reforms to NAFTA, TPP, and trade openness
- Talking Points: Key facts on TPP, lumber, and China
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper follows a clear policy-brief structure — issue statement, background, government interest, previous decisions, options, and recommendations — making the argument easy to trace from problem to solution.
- It balances concrete economic statistics (e.g., $305 billion in projected annual export growth, $123.5 billion in U.S. export gains, $77 billion net worker increase) with broader geopolitical analysis about China's role in East Asia.
- The pros-and-cons section demonstrates intellectual honesty by acknowledging income inequality risks and pharmaceutical patent concerns alongside the benefits of TPP membership.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective policy argumentation by grounding recommendations in historical precedent. Rather than simply advocating for TPP reinstatement, the author traces U.S. trade policy from GATT (1947) through the WTO and NAFTA to show a consistent trajectory toward open markets — making the TPP withdrawal appear as a deviation from a long-standing bipartisan policy consensus. This historical framing gives the normative recommendations empirical weight.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a statement of issue and executive summary, then provides historical background on post-WWII trade institutions. It narrows to the specific government interest in TPP and NAFTA, surveys prior policy decisions, and presents a balanced options analysis. The paper closes with concrete recommendations and bullet-point talking points, a hallmark of the policy-brief genre suited to a legislative or executive audience.
Introduction and Executive Summary
With President Trump upending the Trans-Pacific Partnership, what can be done to move United States trade policy toward an open-market scenario?
The United States economy made some positive strides under the Trump Administration. However, President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership caused a setback in the country's drive to become a major global trader. The pursuit of open markets created a need within the United States government to adopt policies that would allow trade to expand internationally, positioning the United States as a leading contender in the global economy.
Without policy that promotes open trade, the United States may face increasing competition from foreign powers such as China. It is up to the United States government to choose to continue progress toward an open market and trade system. Doing so could yield significant improvements in U.S. manufacturing and attract foreign investment and trade.
Background: U.S. Trade Policy After World War II
Home to one of the strongest and wealthiest economies in the world, the United States has long aimed at constructing a truly international trading system grounded in support for an open market. For the United States to pursue global economic integration, changes are needed in how the government approaches trade and in the adoption of open-market policies. Free trade, as an open-market framework, gives consumers the broadest range of choices for improving their standard of living.
After World War II, the United States experienced a dramatic increase in foreign trade alongside the formation of an international trading framework based on open-economy principles. Having led that transformation once, the United States needs to reassume that position and re-engage with the world economy. In the intervening decades, global trade talks stalled, prompting a turn toward bilateral and regional free trade agreements.
Former President Barack Obama, for example, secured passage of free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama before leaving office. He also negotiated the Asia-centered Trans-Pacific Partnership, furthering the goal of open trade. President Donald J. Trump, however, chose not to continue the TPP and withdrew the United States from the agreement. That decision generated renewed advocacy for a more open market as a way to boost U.S. manufacturing and help American businesses compete globally.
After World War II, international trade policy evolved under the leadership of Europe and the United States. Twenty-three countries signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in October 1947, and within thirty-nine years the agreement had expanded to include 123 nations. Every signatory remained committed to the principles of open economies, freer trade, and lower tariffs. During those years, global tariffs fell from 30 percent to under 5 percent.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan helped launch negotiations — known as the Uruguay Round — that would eventually produce the World Trade Organization (WTO). Finalized under President Bill Clinton in 1994, the WTO aimed to address perceived limitations of the GATT system in areas such as intellectual property, cross-border investment, agriculture, and trade in services. Although negotiations continued as late as 2001, disputes over agriculture policy persisted. India and China sought flexibility to impose safeguard duties on imports while also pushing for reductions in farm subsidies in both Europe and the United States.
Government Interest: The TPP and NAFTA Renegotiations
With WTO negotiations stalled, U.S. policymakers shifted focus to completing smaller bilateral and regional trade and investment deals. Through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), enacted in 1994, Canada and Mexico were able to trade freely with the United States. When Trump ordered withdrawal from the TPP in January 2017 and emphasized bilateral deals instead, the United States risked a significant setback in achieving the open, globalist trade agreement that previous administrations had worked toward. This is the central issue: the withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The TPP is often called a "megaregional" deal because it spans several continents. What began in 2002 among a small group of Pacific Rim countries culminated in President Obama's push for a trade agreement centered on Asia. By 2015, the TPP included twelve nations, among them Japan. China was not among the participating countries.
TPP member countries account for 44 percent of U.S. exports and a substantial 85 percent of total U.S. agricultural exports. While tariffs on trade were already relatively low, the TPP aimed to reform and streamline regulations and customs procedures, promote transparent and competitive business laws, liberalize protected sectors, reinforce intellectual property safeguards, and enforce environmental and labor standards. The objective was to create a fully integrated economic region and establish ongoing rules for the growing flow of global investment.
President Trump also sought to renegotiate NAFTA. A round of NAFTA renegotiations in October 2017 ended in a stalemate with Canada and Mexico. The Trump Administration's list of demands threatened to hinder progress and stall renegotiations through March 2018. These developments signaled a dramatic shift away from the open-markets framework and risked diminishing the United States' position as the world's leading trader. Trump's January 2017 executive order to renegotiate NAFTA generated successive rounds of talks that consumed resources and time, with potential negative effects on the economies of all three NAFTA partners.
References
Amadeo, K. (2014, June 14). Trans-Pacific Partnership: Pros, cons, obstacles. The Balance. https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-trans-pacific-partnership-3305581
McBride, J. (2017, January 31). The Trans-Pacific Partnership and U.S. trade policy. Council on Foreign Relations.
Parker, C. B. (2015, November 11). Trans-Pacific Partnership may produce import competition, Stanford scholar says. Stanford News. https://news.stanford.edu/2015/11/11/tpp-boskin-trade-111115/
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.