One is the implementation of the agreement without the United States. After the US withdrawal, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull reportedly discussed the option with the heads of state and government of Japan, New Zealand and Singapore. A Japanese government official told reporters that the country would not follow the agreement. The United States is by far the largest economy that participated in the TPP negotiations, and others probably consider the related trade-offs to be unattractive without access to the U.S. market. The TPP`s trade area would have been larger than the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is currently the largest in the world. In February 2016, Alfred de Zayas, a UN human rights expert, argued that the TPP was fundamentally flawed and based on an outdated model of trade pacts and that governments should not sign or ratify the TPP.  According to Mr. de Zayas, the international human rights regime imposes binding legal obligations on countries, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and trade must be governed by the human rights regime. Under ISDS at the TPP, investors can sue a government, while a government cannot sue investors. De Zayas argued that this asymmetry made the system unfair. He added that international law, including accountability and transparency, must prevail over trade pacts.
“This is another wake-up call for the United States,” said Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute and a long-time U.S. trade agent who participated in the TPP negotiations. “Now you have two mega-agreements in the region, and both will lead to greater integration between the members of these different blocs.” In November 2009, President Obama announced the united States` intention to participate in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations for an ambitious next-generation Asia-Pacific trade agreement that reflects U.S. economic priorities and values. With this agreement, the Obama administration is trying to stimulate economic growth in the United States and support the creation and commitment of quality American jobs by increasing exports to a region that encompasses some of the world`s most robust economies and accounts for nearly 40% of global GDP. The Obama administration is working closely with Congress and many interest groups to reach a strong agreement on the problems faced by American businesses and workers in the 21st century. On the economic side of the equation, the Obama administration and many trade economists have argued that lower tariffs and improved market access to the agreement have lowered consumer prices, boosted cross-border investment and boosted U.S. exports. More coherent rules and market-oriented reforms in developing countries such as Vietnam and Malaysia would make all affected economies more efficient and improve productivity and growth. Donald Trump criticized the TPP agreement as too long and complicated and said, “[i]t makes 5,600 pages, so complex that no one has read it.”  Senator Bernie Sanders accused the TPP of being much more than a free trade agreement.
 The Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (PPCC) agreement is a free trade agreement between Canada and ten other countries in the Asia-Pacific region: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.