4 Ways The White House Has Gone Full Doublespeak on Fast Track and the TPPMaira Sutton In a blog post published this week, the White House flat out uses doublespeak to tout the benefits of the TPP, even going so far as to claim that without these new trade agreements, there would be no rules protecting American invention, artistic creativity, and research. That is purely bogus, much like the other lies the White House has been recently saying about its trade policies. Lets look at the four main myths they have been saying to sell lawmakers and the public on Fast Track for the TPP. Myth #1: TPP Is Good for the Internet First, there are the claims that this agreement will create stronger protections of a free and open Internet. As we know from previous leaks of the TPPs Intellectual Property chapter, the complete opposite is true. Most of all, the TPPs ISP liability provisions could create greater incentives for Internet and content providers to block and filter content, or even monitor their users in the name of copyright enforcement. What they believe are efforts toward protecting the future of the Internet are provisions theyre advocating for in this and other secret agreements on the free flow of information. In short, these are policies aimed at subverting data localization laws. Such an obligation could be a good or a bad thing, depending on what kind of impact it could have on national censorship, or consumer protections for personal data. Its a complicated issue without an easy solutionwhich is exactly why this should not be decided through secretive trade negotiations. These free flow of information rules have likely been lobbied for by major tech companies, which do not want laws to restrict them on how they deal with users data. It is dishonest to say that what these tech companies can do with peoples data is good for all users and the Internet at large. Myth #2: Fast Track Would Strengthen Congressional Oversight The second, oft-repeated claim is that Fast Track would strengthen congressional oversightwhich is again not true. The U.S. Trade Representative has made this claim throughout the past couple months, including at a Senate Finance Committee hearing in January when he said: Maybe we could believe this if the White House had fought for Fast Track before delegates began negotiating the TPP and TTIP. Maybe it could also have been true if that bill had ensured that Congress members had easy access to the text and kept a close leash on the White House throughout the process to ensure that the negotiating objectives they had outline were in fact being met in the deal. However, we know from the past several years of TPP negotiations, that Congress has largely been shut out of the process. Many members of Congress have spoken out about the White Houses strict rules that have made it exceedingly difficult to influence or even see the terms of these trade deals. The only way Fast Track could really put Congress in the drivers seat over trade policy would be if it fully addressed the lack of congressional oversight over the TPP and TTIP thus far. Lawmakers should be able to hold unlimited debate over the policies being proposed in these deals, and if it comes to it, to amend their provisions. It would be meaningless if the new Fast Track bill enabled more congressional oversight, but if it did not apply to agreements that are ongoing or almost completed. Then the third misleading claim is that Fast Track would help small businesses. Their repetition of this has become louder amid increasing public awareness that the TPP has primarily been driven by major corporations. What may be good for established multinational companies could also benefit certain small online businesses as well. The White House says that tariffs are hindering small online businesses from selling their products abroad, but research has shown that the kinds of traditional trade barriers, like tariffs, that past trade agreements were negotiated to address are already close to non-existent. Therefore it is unclear what other kind of benefits online businesses would see from the TPP. Even if there were some benefits, there are many more ways that the TPP could harm small Internet-based companies. The TPPs copyright provisions could lead to policies where ISPs would be forced to implement costly systems to oversee all users activities and process each takedown notice they receive. They could also discourage investment in new innovative start-ups, even those that plan to play by the rules, due to the risk that companies would have to sink significant resources into legal defenses against copyright holders, or face heavy deterrent penalties for infringement established by the TPP. The last, and most confounding of the White Houses assertions is that the TPP and TTIP are an integral part of the United States national security strategy, because its global strategic interests are intimately linked with [its] broader economic interests. As we have seen with the U.S. governments expansive surveillance regime, national security is often invoked for policies even if they directly undermine our civil liberties. It is hard to argue with the administration whether the TPP and TTIP are in fact in the United States economic or strategic interests, since only they are allowed to see the entire contents of these agreements. Either way, it seems like a huge stretch to say that we can trust the White House and major corporate representatives to determine, in secret, what is in fact good digital policy for the country and the world. We may be hearing this line more and more in the coming weeks as the White House becomes more desperate to legitimize the need for Fast Track to pass the TPP and TTIP. The fact that the White House has resorted to distorting the truth about its trade policies is enough to demonstrate how little the administration values honesty and transparency in policy making, and how much the public stands to lose from these agreements negotiated in secret. The more they try and espouse the potential gains from Fast Trackwhile the trade agreements this legislation would advance remain secretthe more reason we ought to be skeptical. If the TPP is so great and if Fast Track would in fact enable more democratic oversight, why are the contents of either of them still not public? If youre in the United States, take action to stop TPP and other anti-user trade deals from getting fast-tracked through Congress by contacting your lawmaker about trade promotion authority: Please visit the Electronic Frontier Foundation for the latest news in digital privacy and civil liberties. 