How We Got Here: From Obama’s TPP to 2026 and Why U.S. Trade Policy Shifts Matter

TPP: A Strategic Trade Pact Born from the ‘Pivot to Asia’

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) traces its roots to the early 2000s but rose to prominence under the Obama administration as a centrepiece of U.S. economic engagement in Asia. The plan was to expand trade and regulatory cooperation across the Pacific, linking the United States with multiple Pacific Rim countries — ultimately encompassing around 40% of the global economy.

Negotiations for the TPP culminated in a signing on February 4, 2016, under President Obama’s watch. It represented a broad vision of lower tariffs, unified trade standards, and closer economic integration across twelve economies including Australia, Japan, Canada and Mexico.

Many analysts viewed the TPP not just as an economic pact but as a geopolitical tool to counterbalance China’s economic influence in Asia — reinforcing U.S. ties with key partners.

Domestic Politics in the U.S. and the Collapse of TPP

Despite its strategic aims, the TPP quickly became a point of domestic political contention in the United States.

· During the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, opposition grew within both major parties. While the deal was crafted under the Obama administration, it failed to secure ratification in Congress.

· Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, originally supportive of negotiating the TPP, announced her opposition during her 2016 campaign, reflecting broader skepticism among U.S. voters and policymakers.

· Candidate Donald Trump made withdrawing from the TPP central to his campaign message, framing trade deals as harmful to American jobs and sovereignty. Upon taking office, he formalized the U.S. withdrawal on January 23, 2017, effectively preventing the original TPP from taking effect.

The result was a striking policy reversal within a matter of months — from negotiating a landmark multilateral pact to abandoning it entirely.

CPTPP: Salvaging the Pact Without the U.S.

Rather than allowing the TPP to die entirely, the remaining eleven signatories (all members except the U.S.) chose to revive and rebrand the agreement:

· In May 2017, they agreed to continue efforts without the United States.

· The result was the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), signed in March 2018 and entering into force in December 2018 once enough members ratified it.

The CPTPP retained most of the original TPP’s economic content, though some U.S.-proposed provisions (especially on intellectual property and investment protections) were suspended rather than removed — meaning they could be reinstated if the U.S. ever rejoined.

In other words, the groundwork laid by the Obama-era negotiations survived — but without U.S. leadership or market access at first.

China’s Influence and Parallel Trade Blocs

While the U.S. stepped back from the original TPP, China has been advancing its own trade agenda:

· China signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in 2020 with 15 Asia-Pacific countries, a bloc that covers significant economic cooperation but with fewer disciplines on services, labour, and intellectual property than the TPP/CPTPP envisioned.

· China has also formally applied to join the CPTPP, highlighting its desire to shape regional trade norms rather than be left out of major trade frameworks.

This contrast — the U.S. walking away from a multilateral deal designed to bind and set rules, while China pursues RCEP and seeks to join CPTPP — underscores how shifts in U.S. trade policy opened space for alternative frameworks to take root.

2026: Where Trade Architecture Stands Today

Fast forward to 2026, and the conversation has evolved further:

· The CPTPP continues to expand, drawing new accession requests from economies seeking broader market access and deeper global integration.

· Countries like Canada and Japan have pushed for these trade relationships to be more closely linked with other major markets — such as potential alignment with the European Union, proposing frameworks that could span around 1.5 billion people.

· Meanwhile, U.S. policymakers remain divided about rejoining the CPTPP or negotiating new multilateral trade initiatives, even as tariff conflicts and economic competition with China persist globally.

In this landscape, trade diplomacy and bloc formation are increasingly important strategic tools, shaping how goods, services and rules flow across the global economy.

So What Does It All Show?

The arc from the TPP’s ambitious start to the current state of trade policy illustrates several key truths:

1. Trade pacts are deeply political. Domestic electoral politics in the U.S. can derail initiatives that had broad economic and geopolitical support internationally.

2. Withdrawal may have consequences. The U.S.’s departure from the TPP shifted influence toward other actors and frameworks in the Asia-Pacific.

3. Adaptive globalization continues. Even without the U.S., countries have pursued trade cooperation — and blockers like the CPTPP, RCEP, and potential EU linkages show how multilateralism adapts to geopolitical realities.

Whether viewed through an economic or strategic lens, these developments reveal the complex interplay between domestic politics, global competition, and the pursuit of stable economic integration in the 21st century.