In December 2007, the U.S. Congress approved the free trade agreement between Peru and the United States. This agreement did not have large economic impacts in the region, nor did it open the way to the resuscitation of hemispheric talks. What makes it an interesting story, though, is that it passed by a large bipartisan vote, in spite of rising skepticism about free trade agreements in the last few years and the recent election of a new majority of Democratic legislators. In 2001 the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill had passed by only one House vote. In 2006 the U.S.–Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) passed by just two votes. However, U.S. civil society organizations (CSOs) that had fought adamantly these previous initiatives were divided on how to respond to the Peru free trade initiative. For the first time since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was approved, the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) decided not to oppose a new trade deal negotiated in the Americas. This position can be understood only in light of the changes in the political environment in the United States.

The Democratic Party won the majority of seats in Congress in the 2006 elections, in which many of the contenders gained votes by criticizing NAFTA-like agreements in local campaigns (Destler 2007: 1).