I find "free-trade" twice in the text and once more in a quote in this short piece on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is an inaccurate characterization of the deal. Many parts of the deal have nothing to do with free trade; they are about setting regulatory standards. Some parts, like the section on patent and copyright protection, are about increasing protectionist barriers. This is 180 degrees at odds with free trade.
So what's the problem here? Why does the NYT feel the need to waste words and makes its article longer in a way that misinforms readers. Can't it just refer to the Trans-Pacific Partnership as a "trade agreement?"