Background
The U.S. and Bangladesh have entered intense negotiations to finalise a Reciprocal Tariff Agreement aimed at reducing tariffs on Bangladeshi exports to the U.S., particularly in the ready-made garments (RMG) sector, which is Bangladesh’s largest export category to the U.S. The Bangladesh government sought to conceal the details of the terms and conditions imposed by the U.S. government. Thanks to Officer Mukitul Hasan of the National Board of Revenue (NBR), we obtained the details of the 21-page draft agreement. Bangladesh government suspended Mukit and filed a sedition case against him. For a clause-wise review of the agreement please read the article of Iconus Clustus on Muktangon.
The contents of the draft agreement do not give much space to Bangladesh. The plain and simple message of U.S. government is “either it’s my way, or highway”. Bangladesh is clearly in a dilemma. If it agrees to the terms and conditions, it will lose China, which is one of the biggest sources of raw material. Without the raw material from China, a lot of businesses will not be able to offer their products in cheaper price. Bangladesh, if agrees to this agreement, will lose China as a development and commercial partner. China will not take it easily. The fallout with China will also compromise the foreign policy of Bangladesh, I.e., friendship with everyone, hostility with none.
In this article, we will examine the structure of the proposed agreement, discuss its key highlights and primary concerns, which will illustrate why the Bangladesh government sought to conceal the agreement’s details. The article will also show you the ‘colonial’ mentality of the U.S. government will further cripple the economy of Bangladesh.
Structure of the Agreement
The agreement is divided into six major sections, each containing over a hundred conditions:
- Tax-related conditions
- Non-tariff barrier conditions
- Digital trade and technology conditions
- Rules of Origin conditions
- Economic and national security conditions
- Commercial conditions
Key U.S. Proposals and Conditions
The U.S. introduced a new policy under which Bangladeshi exports could face a total duty up to 52%, combining existing tariffs and a new 37% supplementary duty. Bangladesh requested a temporary suspension of the supplementary duty, which the U.S. granted for a period of three months.
The U.S. demands regional value addition rather than domestic value addition for exports. Such value additions will harm Bangladesh’s local industries. The Trump administration wants Bangladesh to mirror American embargoes—for example, if the U.S. bans Chinese imports, Bangladesh would have to do the same. These embargoes are considered impractical due to Bangladesh’s reliance on imports from countries such as China.
Bangladesh, on the other hand, has offered tariff cuts on 626 American products, including complete withdrawal of duties on 110 items and reductions on hundreds more. These include industrial machinery, dairy equipment, and even military hardware, such as rifles and rocket launchers. The U.S. is pushing Bangladesh to reduce its $6 billion trade surplus with the U.S. by importing more American goods.
Bangladesh’s Response
Bangladesh has made counter-proposals, and is seeking a fairer deal, citing the difficulty of meeting some U.S. conditions without harming its domestic industries. Officials from Bangladesh’s Commerce Ministry and trade advisors are actively negotiating in Washington to reach a consensus.
Major Concerns:
The terms proposed by the U.S. government raise significant concerns for Bangladesh, particularly in the areas of sovereignty, trade balance, protection of domestic industry, labour and environmental governance, and data security. One of the most pressing issues is the erosion of independence and regulatory autonomy. For instance, the agreement requires Bangladesh to ban the use of China’s LOGINK logistics system in its ports and vessels, mirroring U.S. embargoes. This not only limits Bangladesh’s freedom to choose its strategic partners but also forces it to align with U.S. geopolitical interests, potentially straining relations with key trade allies like China.
Another primary concern is the risk of a growing trade imbalance. The agreement heavily favours U.S. exports to Bangladesh, mandating increased imports of American military equipment, aircraft, soybeans, and LNG. For example, Bangladesh would be required to purchase U.S.-made civilian aircraft through its national carrier, Biman, and enter long-term contracts for U.S. liquefied natural gas. These obligations could significantly increase Bangladesh’s import bill without guaranteeing reciprocal access for its exports, thereby widening the existing trade deficit.
The pressure on domestic industries is also considerable. Local manufacturers may struggle to compete with U.S. goods that enter the Bangladeshi market under relaxed import conditions. For example, the agreement stipulates that Bangladesh must accept U.S. standards for medical devices and pharmaceuticals without reservation, even in cases where local standards or regulatory frameworks are still in development. These stipulations could marginalise domestic producers who cannot meet these externally imposed benchmarks, ultimately weakening local industry.
Labour and environmental oversight, while important, are being externally dictated in ways that may not align with Bangladesh’s current socio-political context. The U.S. demands changes to labour laws, such as reducing the threshold for forming trade unions to 20% worker consent and granting full union rights to workers in Export Processing Zones (EPZs). While these reforms could improve labour rights, they may also provoke resistance from industry stakeholders and require significant legal restructuring. Similarly, environmental conditions include strict enforcement of anti-poaching laws and marine conservation, which, though commendable, may be costly to implement without adequate support.
Ultimately, the agreement raises significant concerns regarding data sovereignty and cybersecurity. Bangladesh would be required to share all customs data related to U.S. goods with American authorities and ensure that no U.S.-origin product is exported or re-exported without approval from the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security. This level of data sharing could compromise national security and expose sensitive trade information to foreign oversight, undermining Bangladesh’s control over its digital infrastructure.
What is to be Done and How Bangladesh can Avoid the Catastrophe:
To avoid the looming catastrophe posed by the current draft of the U.S.-Bangladesh Reciprocal Tariff Agreement, Bangladesh must adopt a multi-pronged strategy rooted in transparency, strategic diplomacy, and economic pragmatism. First and foremost, the government must ensure full public disclosure of the agreement’s terms and initiate a robust parliamentary debate. This will not only uphold democratic accountability but also allow for a comprehensive assessment of the agreement’s long-term implications on national sovereignty and economic independence.
Bangladesh must resist any clause that undermines its regulatory autonomy or forces alignment with foreign geopolitical interests, particularly those that jeopardise its longstanding relationship with China—a critical partner in trade, infrastructure, and development. The proposed embargo mirroring and exclusion of Chinese logistics systems, for instance, would severely disrupt supply chains and alienate a key ally. Instead, Bangladesh should advocate for a non-aligned trade policy that preserves its diplomatic principle of “friendship to all, malice to none.”
Economically, the government must push for a more balanced agreement that does not disproportionately favour U.S. exports. The current terms, which mandate increased imports of American goods—including military hardware and LNG—without reciprocal concessions, risk exacerbating the trade deficit and weakening domestic industries. Bangladesh should demand phased tariff reductions, safeguard clauses for sensitive sectors, and enforceable commitments from the U.S. to support local capacity building and technology transfer.
Furthermore, the imposition of U.S. standards on pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and digital trade must be renegotiated to allow for transitional arrangements that respect Bangladesh’s developmental stage. Labour and environmental reforms, while important, should be domestically legislated and contextually adapted, not externally dictated. Bangladesh must also reject any data-sharing provisions that compromise its digital sovereignty or expose sensitive trade information to foreign oversight.
To strengthen its negotiating position, Bangladesh should build coalitions with other developing nations facing similar pressures, leveraging multilateral platforms such as the WTO and regional trade blocs. It must also engage civil society, industry leaders, and trade unions in shaping a unified national stance that prioritises economic justice and long-term resilience.
In essence, Bangladesh must not allow short-term trade concessions to erode its strategic autonomy. The agreement, if it is to proceed at all, must be fundamentally restructured to reflect mutual respect, equitable benefits, and the sovereign right of Bangladesh to chart its own economic future. Anything less would not only compromise its development trajectory but also set a dangerous precedent for future international engagements.
Conclusion:
In summary, while the agreement presents strategic opportunities for trade and investment, its current form appears heavily skewed in favour of advancing U.S. interests. For Bangladeshi businesses, the deal could be beneficial only if renegotiated to include stronger protections for domestic industries, preserve regulatory independence, and ensure a more balanced and reciprocal trade relationship.
If signed in its current form, the U.S.-Bangladesh agreement would represent not just an economic shift, but a political submission. It offers Bangladesh no real reciprocity—only structural subordination. The agreement must not proceed without full public disclosure, parliamentary debate, and renegotiation that canters national interest, regulatory autonomy, and economic justice. Anything less would be a betrayal not only of our trade policy—but of our sovereignty itself.
International Human Rights Lawyer in exile.