According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the TPP contains “the most robust environmental commitments in history.  The USTR notes that the TPP requires signatories to comply with its obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in order to protect and preserve iconic species.  According to the USTR, the TPP is the first trade agreement banning fishing-harmful subsidies such as those that contribute to overfishing.  The USTR states that TPP signatories are required to “fight illegal fishing,” “promote sustainable fisheries management practices,” “protect wetlands and important natural areas,” “fight illegal wildlife trade, illegal logging and illegal fishing” and “protect the marine environment from pollution from ships , including meeting its obligations under MARPOL (an international agreement for the prevention of marine pollution).”  In a 2018 study on general foreign trade, researchers found that a large majority of adults in the United States view foreign trade as more favourable to U.S. growth than to 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.  A September 2016 report by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) predicts that “if countries take action to protect the climate, conflicts between trade rules and climate targets will escalate.” :1 The report also indicates that trade agreements such as the TPP establish broad-based rules for the economy and government policy, which expands trade, often in the extractive sectors, and protects businesses and financial enterprises from future climate stabilization measures.  In May 2015, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman expressed concern that the TPP would tighten patent laws and allow companies such as large pharmaceutical companies and Hollywood to gain benefits in terms of increasing rewards at the expense of consumers, and that people in developing countries would not be able to access drugs under the TPP regime.  However, Walter Park, professor of economics at American University, argues that when it comes to economic research, it is far from clear that this would necessarily happen: clarification of the intellectual property rights of drugs has not resulted in higher prices and access to drugs for some developing countries.  Park also argues, based on existing literature, that drug protection in the TPP could improve unskilled licensing in developing countries, lead to technology transfers that will contribute to local learning, stimulate new drug launches in more countries, develop marketing and distribution networks, and foster pharmaceutical innovation from the outset.  The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative notes that the TPP is “consistent with the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health,” which allows developing countries to circumvent patent rights for better access to essential medicines. Meanwhile, Trump is considering an important step in assessing tariffs on imported cars on the same national security basis as the government by imposing 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum.