October, 09 2015, 11:15am EDT

WikiLeaks Publication of Complete, Final TPP Intellectual Property Text Confirms Pact Would Raise Costs, Put Medicines Out of Reach
Final Deal Rolls Back Bush-Era “May 2007” Access to Medicine Protections
WASHINGTON
WikiLeaks' publication today of the final Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Intellectual Property chapter text verifies that the pact would harm public health by blocking patient access to lifesaving medicines, Public Citizen said today. The latest leak of a secret TPP text reveals how the TPP would roll back the "May 10 Agreement" reforms brokered in 2007 between Democratic congressional leaders and the George W. Bush administration. It also reveals the contentious "death sentence" clause on biologics, or biotech drugs, which roiled TPP talks in Maui and Atlanta.
"If the TPP is ratified, people in Pacific Rim countries would have to live by the rules in this leaked text," said Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen's Global Access to Medicines program. "The new monopoly rights for big pharmaceutical firms would compromise access in TPP countries. The TPP would cost lives."
The leak comes the morning after a White House meeting with pharmaceutical executives who are dissatisfied that the deal did not provide them even greater monopoly rights.
"The monopolist pharmaceutical industry has won a lot with the TPP, at the expense of people's health," said Burcu Kilic, policy director for Public Citizen's Global Access to Medicines program. "They should stop crying crocodile tears."
WikiLeaks published the complete TPP Intellectual Property Chapter, dated Monday, October 5, 2015 - the date that the 12 Pacific Rim nations announced a final TPP deal. The leaked text does not contain negotiating country brackets, indicating rules are no longer subject to debate, but rather are the final version subject only to a legal "scrub."
"These final TPP rules would lengthen, strengthen and broaden special patent and data protections, which pharmaceutical companies use to delay generic competition and keep drug prices high," said Maybarduk.
The text shows that TPP rules do not even conform to the Bush-era May 10 access to medicines standards that many congressional Democrats had insisted be further improved. In contravention of the May 10 standard, TPP imposes patent term extensions and additional and longer marketing exclusivities, as shown in Public Citizen's analysis (PDF). Unlike the May 10 Agreement standard, the TPP would require developing countries to quickly transition to the same rules that apply to developed countries, which provide extreme monopoly rights for the pharmaceutical industry and limit access to affordable medicines.
"From very early on in the TPP negotiations, and to the ire of health advocates, it became apparent that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) was abandoning the May 10 Agreement template," said Maybarduk. "With today's publication of the final version of the TPP IP chapter by WikiLeaks, for the first time the public can see precisely which rules negotiators agreed to and, importantly, how far beyond the May 10 Agreement the provisions extend pharmaceutical intellectual property obligations in developing countries."
Pharmaceutical intellectual property and access to medicines have been especially contentious issues in the TPP talks, contributing to years of delay in the Obama administration's timeline for completing a TPP deal. While various new monopoly rights for drug firms were agreed to by participating nations, confrontations over a special exclusivity rule for biologics - medical products derived from living organisms, including many new and forthcoming cancer treatments - contributed to the meltdown of the August ministerial in Hawaii and the double-overtime near-failure in Atlanta.
Biologics exclusivity is separate from and independent of patent protection, though the protections may overlap. The USTR initially supported a twelve- and then an eight-year minimum monopoly period, while a majority bloc of negotiating countries would not consider more than five years' exclusivity. (Five countries provide no special biologics exclusivity rule at all in their laws.) A Public Citizen analysis of the biologics provisions is available here (PDF).
The final document imposes a minimum mandatory five-year period. It also subjects the issue to future discussions of a "TPP Commission" and efforts "to deliver a comparable effective period." This reflects a USTR effort to impose eight-year monopolies over countries' refusal.
"That purposefully ambiguous language is meant to provide USTR a means to harass countries in the future, and keep pushing for longer monopolies and industry profits at the expense of people's health," said Kilic.
The USTR has indicated its solution to medicine access would include transition periods for developing countries. Yet the leaked text shows that transition periods would last only three to ten years and apply to only a few of the rules under discussion. A Public Citizen analysis of the transition periods in the leaked text is available here (PDF).
"Forcing expansive pharmaceutical monopoly rules on countries that can scarcely afford high drug prices has not always been U.S. trade policy, and in the past U.S. policymakers have recognized that the needs of developing countries should not always be subordinate to U.S. pharmaceutical industry profits," said Maybarduk. "Some rare public servants from TPP countries fought back and stood for health in this negotiation. Their efforts saved lives," said Maybarduk. "Yet in the end, the TPP will still trade away our health."
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
'Everyone Is Welcome Here' Signs Banned From Idaho Schools as 'Political' Statement
"To say that 'Everyone is Welcome' in a public school system is not political, it's the law," said one Idaho teacher.
Jul 02, 2025
The Idaho attorney general's office has declared schools in the state will no longer be allowed to post signs declaring that "Everyone is welcome here" on the grounds that they are purportedly a political message aimed at criticizing the policies of President Donald Trump.
Idaho Ed Newsreported Monday that the office has found that signs stating "Everyone is welcome here" violate Idaho House Bill 41, a law passed back in March that bars schools from flying flags or displaying signs that represent "a political viewpoint, including but not limited to flags or banners regarding a political party, race, sexual orientation, gender, or a political ideology."
In explaining its rationale, the Idaho attorney general's office claimed that "these signs are part of an ideological/social movement which started in Twin Cities, Minnesota following the 2016 election of Donald Trump" and added that "since that time, the signs have been used by the Democratic Party as a political statement. The Idaho Democratic Party even sells these signs as part of its fundraising efforts.”
The signs became an issue after Sarah Inama, a teacher in Idaho's West Ada School District, had refused to take them down from her classroom in the wake of Idaho House Bill 41's passage because she did not believe that a sign welcoming students regardless of their race or ethnicity should be considered political.
In a statement to Idaho Ed News, Inama once again expressed bewilderment that anyone could find the signs to be a political statement, especially given that government institutions are already legally barred from engaging in racial discrimination.
"To say that 'Everyone is welcome' in a public school system is not political, it's the law," Inama told the publication.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Fight Is Not Over': Progressives Launch Last-Ditch Push Against GOP Budget Monstrosity
"This country deserves better than this dumpster fire of greed, cruelty, and cowardice."
Jul 02, 2025
Progressives within and outside of Congress are mobilizing and working to rally public opposition on Wednesday as House Republicans moved to put the final stamp of approval on a budget package that includes unprecedented cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance—alongside trillions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.
"This fight isn't over, and we're not backing down," Andrew O'Neil, national advocacy director of Indivisible, said following the Republican-controlled Senate's narrow passage of the budget reconciliation bill on Tuesday, a vote so close that Vice President JD Vance was forced to intervene to push the measure over the finish line.
The GOP's margins are similarly thin in the House, with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) only able to lose three Republican members amid unanimous Democratic opposition.
Indivisible and other advocacy organizations are driving calls and emails to House Republicans on Wednesday urging them to vote down the Senate-passed legislation, which is significantly more expensive and contains more aggressive Medicaid cuts than the bill the House approved in May. Medicaid cuts are highly unpopular with the U.S. public, including among Republican voters.
The phone number for the U.S. House switchboard is (202) 224-3121.
"Your Republican representative could be the deciding vote," Ezra Levin, Indivisible's co-executive director, said in an appearance on MSNBC late Tuesday. "We've got about 26 Republican targets. We need four of them—we just need four. And this is not a done deal."
While a House vote on the legislation could come as soon as Wednesday, far-right hardliners in the Republican caucus are threatening to prevent a quick advance of the bill, pointing to projections that it would add trillions of dollars to the nation's deficit over the next decade.
Reps. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) reportedly headed to the White House on Wednesday to meet with Trump administration officials, who have urged Republican holdovers to drop their objections and help pass the budget legislation.
Progressive lawmakers in the House, meanwhile, are united in firm opposition to the bill, which they warn would have catastrophic impacts on vulnerable Americans nationwide.
"No way will I allow [President Donald] Trump and the GOP to rip healthcare and food away from millions of Americans just so he, [Elon] Musk, and their billionaire buddies can get a tax break," Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said Wednesday, declaring that he will vote "hell no" on the Republican bill.
Today the Senate passed the biggest betrayal of working people in modern history.
It rips health care from 17 million, slashes food aid, and showers billionaires with tax breaks.
Next stop: the House. Progressives will be voting HELL NO. https://t.co/qd4Q13YiNa
— Progressive Caucus (@USProgressives) July 1, 2025
House Republican leaders are hoping to get the bill to President Donald Trump's desk for his signature before the July 4 holiday on Friday.
If passed, experts say the GOP legislation would spark the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single law in U.S. history.
Heidi Shierholz, president of the Economic Policy Institute, said Tuesday that the Republican bill "steals from the poor to give massive tax cuts to the wealthy."
"If the Republicans wanted to add $4 trillion to the national debt, they could have instead written a $12,000 check to each and every adult and child in the United States," said Shierholz. "However, this grotesque bill would cause the bottom 40% of households to lose income on average. This country deserves better than this dumpster fire of greed, cruelty, and cowardice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Defenders Denounce Trump-DeSantis Alligator Alcatraz as 'Direct Assault on Humanity'
"This facility echoes some of our nation's darkest history," said a civil liberties advocate.
Jul 02, 2025
Civil liberties advocates expressed horror on Tuesday after President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis held a joint press event at a massive new detention facility in the Florida Everglades known as "Alligator Alcatraz."
The facility was first announced last month when Republican Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier unveiled a plan to renovate the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport and transform it into a mass detention center for immigrants. During a press event touting the new facility, DeSantis boasted that detainees being held at the facility had little hope of ever escaping given that it was surrounded by miles of alligator-infested swamps.
"What'll happen is you'll bring people in there, they ain't going anywhere once they're there unless you want them to go somewhere, because, good luck getting to civilization," he explained. "So the security is amazing—natural and otherwise."
Civil liberties advocates were appalled by the new facility, which is lined with razor-wire fence and is projected at least initially to house 5,000 beds for immigrants awaiting deportation. Bacardi Jackson, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, accused Trump and DeSantis of engaging in wanton cruelty with their touting of the new facility and said it harkened back to dark chapters in American history.
"Building a prison-like facility on sacred indigenous land in the middle of the Everglades is a direct assault on humanity, dignity, indigenous sovereignty, and the constitutional protections we all share," she said. “Our laws—both U.S. and Florida—prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. Yet, this facility echoes some of our nation's darkest history, all while trampling the very land that indigenous communities have long fought to protect."
She added that "the facility's opening also comes as Congress is poised to authorize $45 billion in funding to expand the harmful mass immigration detention machine, right on the heels of multiple deaths in detention facilities" and further said that the project "dehumanizes people, strips them of their rights, and diverts public dollars from the services our communities need."
Guardian correspondent Robert Tait, meanwhile, described the press event surrounding the facility's opening as a "calculatedly provocative celebration of the dystopian" in a place that was designed to be "a location of dread to those lacking documentary proof of their right to be in the U.S."
Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta delivered an even more scathing denunciation of the facility on his Substack page, labeling it a "gulag in the swamp" that was intended to distract Trump supporters from the Republican Party's efforts to take an axe to Medicaid spending in their budget bill.
"Trump knows he can salvage a bad news cycle in conservative media if he can find new and, in this case, medieval ways to torment immigrants," Acosta explained. "Distract the base from Medicaid coverage they're going to lose or the skyrocketing deficits plaguing future generations by conjuring up the fantasy of terrified migrants being eaten by alligators—a prospect that seemed to delight Trump when speaking with reporters Tuesday morning."
Amid growing condemnation of the facility, Trump adviser Stephen Miller encouraged other states to pitch their own ideas for migrant detention facilities during a Tuesday night Fox News appearance. What's more, Miller said that accepted proposals from states would receive funding from the very same GOP budget bill that is projected to slash Medicaid spending by over $1 trillion over a 10-year period.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular