This is a pretty silly argument from Sen. Warren. Put aside the fact that she can't even be bothered to ascribe the argument to any named individual, nobody's arguing that the agreements themselves shouldn't be public and "transparent".
A modern trade agreement represents a balancing of a huge number of private interests. Some will benefit and some will be harmed, but the overall outcome is expected to be positive for all sides. Achieving that balance will require concessions from both sides. It is an extraordinary restraint on the capabilities of the USTR if they must worry about every concession they offer (which may never even make it into the deal) being trumpeted to the rooftops by domestic political opposition.
This is really common sense. It's the same reason the military base closure commission deliberates in private, or, for that matter, why the U.S. Supreme Court does, even with no direct electoral politics at issue.
Closed proceedings are the exception in the American system. Generally, there are two justifications, deriving from constitutional missions: security, and the inherently counter-democratic function of the judiciary. Even then, oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court are public and recorded.
The USTR cannot avail itself of such justifications.
Am I misunderstanding, or are you suggesting that it would be exceptional for the U.S. to keep diplomatic negotiations private? ISTM that it's just the opposite: International discussions are almost always held in private. Why should what the USTR does be any different from, say, negotiation with an ally over a Status of Forces agreement?
A modern trade agreement represents a balancing of a huge number of private interests. Some will benefit and some will be harmed, but the overall outcome is expected to be positive for all sides. Achieving that balance will require concessions from both sides. It is an extraordinary restraint on the capabilities of the USTR if they must worry about every concession they offer (which may never even make it into the deal) being trumpeted to the rooftops by domestic political opposition.
This is really common sense. It's the same reason the military base closure commission deliberates in private, or, for that matter, why the U.S. Supreme Court does, even with no direct electoral politics at issue.