According to analyst and economist B.R. Williams, the United States plays an important role in removing trade barriers and increasing U.S. investment. Williams says the U.S. wants to create a “broader platform for trade liberalization, particularly across the Asia-Pacific region.”  Scholars C. Li and J. Whalley explore a numerical approach to explaining the liberal effects of the TPP. Li and Whalley use a quantitative balance simulation to study the impact of the TPP on trade liberalization and new markets.  However, Professor Marc L. Busch of Georgetown University and Professor Krzysztof J. Pelc of McGill University note that modern trade agreements are long and complex, as they often address non-tariff barriers, such as different standards and rules, in addition to tariffs.
As a result of the steady reduction of customs barriers since the Second World War, countries are increasingly facing trade barriers in the form of non-tariff barriers. Domestic companies often commit to their own governments in order to adopt rules to keep foreign companies away. The TPP deals with many of these “disguised trade restrictions,” for example by “supporting these measures on the basis of agreed science; Make the rule-making process more transparent Allow foreign exporters to make a significant contribution to the formulation of these measures.  The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), also known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, was a draft trade agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the United States, signed on February 4, 2016. After new U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. signature from the TPP in January 2017, the agreement could not be properly ratified and did not enter into force. The other countries negotiated a new trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement, which contains most of the provisions of the TPP and came into force on December 30, 2018. In a 2018 study on general foreign trade, researchers found that a large majority of U.S. adults view foreign trade as beneficial to U.S.
growth and not a foreign threat.  In the international context, Americans are generally among the least likely supporters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and there is a clear partisan divide between American public opinion to support the trade agreement.  The original TPP was assumed by some that it would likely bring China`s neighbours closer to the United States and reduce its dependence on Chinese trade.            If ratified, the TPP would have strengthened American influence over future rules of the world economy. U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the adoption of the TPP was as valuable to the United States as the creation of another aircraft carrier.  President Obama argued that if we do not adopt this agreement – if America does not write these rules – then countries like China will.”  According to the Congressional Research Service, “many Asian politicians could interpret – well or not – a failure of the TPP in the United States as a symbol of diminishing American interest in the region and the inability to assert leadership… If the tPP fails to reach the conclusion, China could effectively allow China to develop regional rules on trade and diplomacy through its own trade and investment initiatives, which could create regional rules and standards that are less beneficial to U.S. interests.  Michael J. Green and Matthew P.
Goodman assert that “history will be merciless if the TPP fails… If Congress rejects the TPP, the attempt to negotiate a similar agreement in Asia would revive U.S. demands – and in the meantime, alternative rules such as the RCEP, which exclude the United States, are likely to be underway.