Eight days ago, on Nov. 13, the always controversial website WikiLeaks leaked government documents concerning the Intellectual Property Rights Chapter of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. The TPP is a substantial expansion to an existing trade agreement between Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore that would include the United States, Canada and several other large Pacific Rim economies. The agreement has the stated goal of trade liberalization for the 21st century. This would not normally be too controversial as trade liberalization has been one of the core tenets of America’s foreign policy for decades. However, the executive branch used secrecy and blatant violations of Congress’ constitutional authority to attempt to “fast track” the agreement and put in place several intellectual property laws that would be devastating to innovation both in the U.S. and abroad.

The fast track authority, formally known as the trade promotion authority and created by the Trade Act of 1974, allows the executive branch to expedite the process of passing trade agreements by limiting debate in Congress, not allowing any amendments and accelerating the vote time frame. The most recent version of fast track expired in 2007 and was not renewed because it was widely considered to be unconstitutional.

However, the Obama administration and U.S. trade negotiators are attempting to pass the TPP through Congress in an expedited manner as if the fast track laws were still in place; however, 151 House Democrats and 23 Republicans have signed letters to U.S. trade negotiators expressing opposition to the fast track plan in the last week alone. Even without discussing the actual mechanics of the TPP agreement, this blatant violation of the rule of law and the Constitution is a reason why the United States should not sign on to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Signing on to this agreement would essentially be granting the executive branch the right to supersede Congress’ constitutional authority to regulate foreign trade and consequently enter into international agreements that are in violation of U.S. laws and regulations.

The Intellectual Property Rights Chapter of the TPP itself would also be devastating to innovation in both the United States and developing countries. The TPP makes it easier for pharmaceutical companies to get and hold patents while simultaneously making it harder for competing companies to produce generics. U.S. negotiators have even mentioned the possibility of allowing surgical procedures to be copyrighted internationally. In the United States, this section of the agreement would raise our already-sky-high health care costs by cutting down on competition. In developing countries, however, the effects would be far worse. Many developing nations simply cannot afford to purchase premium drugs for HIV, malaria and other epidemic illnesses, leaving generics as their only option. Cutting down on U.S. production of generic drugs could have devastating effects on healthcare in developing nations worldwide. The United States has been crippling health care systems in developing nations for years by forcing them to accept U.S.-style intellectual property laws as conditionality for foreign aid. The TPP would simply be a continuation of this same cycle.

The TPP could also have adverse effects on agriculture in Pacific Rim economies. It could force developing countries to lift import tariffs, which would lead to huge influxes of cheap American-grown monoculture crops. This could undercut local farmers’ prices and tank domestic agriculture in nations such as Vietnam, just as the North American Free Trade Agreement did in Mexico. The intellectual property law requirements could also allow American corporations like Monsanto to internationalize their practice of suing farmers whose crops are accidentally fertilized by windblown Monsanto genetically engineered seeds for copyright infringement. International trade agreements have historically never been good for agriculture in developing countries, so there’s no reason to believe the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be any different.

The TPP could also impede innovation in our domestic economy in countless ways. The exorbitant costs of copyright enforcement could make it much harder for small Internet startups to get off the ground. Legal protections for digital rights management software—technological protections to limit the use of content after sale—could hamper the flow of new technology in the United States and make it harder for small companies to compete. Overall, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement seems to be directed by the interests of large U.S. corporations. Approving the TPP could have devastating effects on health care, agriculture and small businesses both at home and abroad.