The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) among 12 Asia-Pacific countries, which the Obama Administration casts as comprehensive and high standard, with economic and strategic significance for the United States. The 12 countries (including the United States) announced the conclusion of the TPP negotiations and released the text of the agreement in late 2015. Trade ministers from the TPP countries signed the final agreement text on February 4, 2016, but Congress would need to pass implementing legislation for the agreement to enter into force for the United States. It would be eligible to receive expedited legislative consideration under Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), P.L. 114-26 , if Congress determines the Administration has advanced the TPA negotiating objectives, and has met various notification and consultation requirements. Through the TPP, the participating countries seek to liberalize trade and investment and establish new rules and disciplines in the region beyond those that already exist in the World Trade Organization (WTO). The FTA is envisioned as a living agreement open to future members and new issues and may become a vehicle to advance a wider Asia-Pacific free trade area. Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea have recently indicated their interest in joining the TPP. It is also a U.S. policy response to the rapidly increasing economic and strategic linkages among Asian-Pacific nations and has become the economic centerpiece of the Administration's "rebalance" toward the region. The United States has existing FTAs with 6 of the countries participating in the TPP. Views on the likely impact of the agreement vary. Proponents argue that the TPP will boost economic growth and jobs through expanded trade and investment with countries currently accounting for 37% of total U.S. trade, and deepen U.S. trade and investment integration in what many see as the region with the world's greatest economic opportunities. Proponents also argue the agreement allows the United States to "write the rules" of trade and investment in the region, including new disciplines on issues such as digital trade barriers, state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and regulatory coherence, and to show its strategic engagement and economic leadership in the Asia-Pacific region. Opponents voice concerns over possible job losses and competition in import-sensitive industries. They also raise concerns that the proposed TPP will limit the U.S. government's ability to regulate in areas such as health, food safety, and the environment. Throughout the negotiations on TPP, certain aspects of the agreement have proven controversial. These include select market access issues (such as on dairy and other agricultural products, autos, and textiles and apparel) as well as the level of intellectual property protection, the scope and enforcement of environment and worker rights provisions, the treatment of SOEs, investor-state dispute settlement, access to government procurement, and the potential inclusion of provisions on currency valuation and exchange rates. This report briefly summarizes some of the key provisions listed generally in alphabetical order. Additional analysis of the agreement will be forthcoming. The potential economic impact of the TPP agreement will depend on a number of factors, including the extent of trade liberalization achieved in the agreement, as well as the current level and potential growth of trade and investment among TPP members. On both measures, the TPP appears significant given that it would be the largest U.S. FTA by trade flows ($905 billion in U.S. goods and services exports and $980 billion in imports in 2014), and would eventually eliminate all tariffs on manufactured products and most agricultural goods. From the U.S. perspective, a significant share of this liberalization has already occurred due to the existing U.S. FTAs with 6 of the 11 TPP partners. Japan's entry into the negotiations increased the potential economic significance of the agreement. Among U.S. negotiating partners in the TPP, Japan is the largest economy and trading partner without an existing U.S. FTA (thus having greater scope for trade liberalization with the United States). In 2014, Japan was the United States' fourth-largest goods export ($67 billion) and import ($134 billion) market. As high-income countries, U.S.-Japan trade differs considerably from U.S. trade with most other TPP partners without U.S. FTAs, which generally are not high-income nations. As a result, many U.S. industries are actively interested in Japan's participation in the TPP. Malaysia and Vietnam also stand out among the TPP countries without existing U.S. FTAs, given the rapid growth in U.S. trade with the two nations over the past three decades, and the potential for future growth. Both economies have grown steadily and rapidly since the 1980s. Moreover, Malaysia's and Vietnam's average applied tariffs on imports are 6.1% and 9.5%, respectively, two of the highest levels among TPP members. Both nations also have a substantial presence of SOEs in their economies, which may be affected by TPP outcomes among other trade barriers of potential interest to the United States. TPA requires that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) prepare a report that estimates the economic impact of the final TPP agreement within 105 days of its signing. Other studies estimating the agreement's economic impact have been released since the conclusion of the negotiations , some receiving considerable attention. An updated study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that the United States stands to gain $131 billion in annual real income from TPP driven primarily by reductions in non-tariff barriers to goods and services trade. Meanwhile, a new study by researchers at Tufts University predicts the agreement will actually lead to a slight decline in annual U.S. GDP growth and a loss of 770,000 jobs split amongst all TPP participants. Economic modeling inevitably requires a number of assumptions that can influence results, and critiques have been made against both studies. 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. There is general consensus that these modeling exercises are more useful in examining the direction of benefits and sectors that may be impacted, rather than in providing precise figures for economic outcomes. In addition to its potential economic implications, the TPP has a number of strategic implications for U.S. trade policy and broader U.S. geopolitical interests in the Asia-Pacific region. The Obama Administration has argued that the strategic value of a potential TPP agreement parallels its economic value, contending that the agreement would strengthen U.S. allies and partners and reaffirm U.S. economic leadership in the region. 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. Some argue that the geopolitical costs of TPP failure could be significant. For instance, many observers argue that China is attempting to create a regional order that reduces U.S. presence and power. In this line of reasoning, the TPP could serve as a counter to growing Chinese economic and political influence. This could in turn imply that 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. Others argue that past trade pacts have had a limited impact on broad foreign policy dynamics, that U.S. and Chinese economic initiatives are not necessarily competitors, and that the TPP should be considered primarily or solely for its potential impact on the U.S. economy. U.S. participation in TPP negotiations also serves several strategic goals in U.S. trade policy, most notably providing direction for and potentially revitalizing the rules-based global trading system. The TPP arguably continues and expands a U.S. trade policy of negotiating, in the Administration's words, "comprehensive and high standard" bilateral and regional FTAs to open markets and address new trade barriers, and potentially spark or otherwise influence multilateral negotiations in the WTO and in other trade negotiations. The TPP may provide the United States with the opportunity to project its trade interests by establishing disciplines that build on existing U.S. FTAs and multilateral agreements, potentially updating trade rules to reflect the realities of modern international commerce. In addition, the TPP may present an alternative to less comprehensive models of FTAs constructed by other countries, potentially including the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which does not include the United States. These agreements, even if open to U.S. participation, could be seen as disadvantageous to U.S. businesses and workers because they often exclude or have less extensive provisions on agriculture, services, investment, and intellectual property rights, which some see as among the most important FTA provisions for certain U.S. sectors. The President has repeatedly highlighted the importance of maintaining U.S. leadership in crafting global trade rules, notably with reference to potentially alternative Chinese initiatives. Some argue, however, that the various FTA proposals in the region, including those backed by China, may be complementary rather than in competition with U.S. initiatives, and ultimately could serve as building blocks for the future expansion of TPP or a comprehensive Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP). There are 30 chapters in the TPP agreement, ranging from market access (such as the elimination of tariff and nontariff barriers and quotas on agriculture), to specific rules on various trade-related issues (such as intellectual property rights, regulatory issues, and labor and environmental standards). Summarized below are some of the key issues in the TPP.