Why the Bangladesh-US deal demands public scrutiny
The hastily struck tariff deal with the Trump administration has brought a measure of relief to Bangladesh, both economically and politically. But if the early signs are any indication, the story is far from over. Reports in the media have mostly focused on the positives—most notably, a surge in orders for readymade garments, in some cases rerouted from neighbouring countries facing higher tariffs. In the short term, this has led to a boost in apparel exports. Encouraging as this may be for the apparel sector, the bigger picture is still unfolding, and the long-term impact remains uncertain.
Commerce Adviser Sheikh Bashir Uddin stated that the government is working to reduce the US-imposed reciprocal tariff from 20 percent to 15 percent. Speaking to reporters on August 12, he said talks with Washington were ongoing and that a reduction could come before the final agreement. "We hope that the steps we have taken to reduce the US-Bangladesh trade deficit will reduce the duty," Bashir said. He also promised that the government would disclose the much-debated Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) once approval comes through from the US. That NDA has been at the heart of a storm, fuelling controversy and criticism of the government for months.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. NDAs are nothing unusual in bilateral trade negotiations. Confidentiality often gives negotiators an edge, especially when global competitors are watching. However, secrecy makes little sense once a deal has been signed. The expectation now is that the government will publish the NDA sooner rather than later. Other countries are already doing so, allowing their businesses to plan ahead and strategise, while giving the public space for debate. Bangladesh risks falling behind if it does not follow suit.
One of the biggest sticking points in the talks remains agriculture. Here, the debate echoes far beyond Bangladesh. In Europe, the issue is particularly charged. Last month, the US and EU narrowly avoided a tariff war with a last-minute deal. Yet, agriculture remains unresolved. A joint statement released on August 21 confirmed that Washington would keep high tariffs on European vehicles until Brussels lowered duties on US industrial and agricultural goods. It was described as only "a first step," leaving the toughest questions for later.
For Washington, those questions involve securing broader access for its farm exports—ranging from bison and dairy to tree nuts and seafood—as well as rolling back digital restrictions that hamper the big US tech platforms. Yet, Europe has long resisted opening its markets to US agriculture, citing higher standards for food safety, environmental protection, and animal welfare. The EU's precautionary principle means no product enters until proven safe—a sharp contrast to the US approach, where products are assumed safe until proven otherwise.
India has also sparred with Washington over agriculture, though for different reasons. There, the fight is less about safety and more about protecting farmers from price collapses that could devastate rural livelihoods. For Bangladesh, both sides of the issue—safety standards and farmer protections—carry weight.
That point has been underlined by Fisheries and Livestock Adviser Farida Akhter, a long-time campaigner for farmers' rights and indigenous agriculture. She has gone public with her concerns that Bangladesh is under mounting pressure to open its markets to beef, genetically modified (GM) crops and seeds, and to ease restrictions on chemical and pesticide giants.
In fact, US agribusiness influence in Bangladesh runs deeper than many realise. Monsanto has lobbied for years to introduce GM seeds here. The company even managed to persuade former agriculture minister Matia Chowdhury—a politician once known for her strong anti-US stance—to allow limited cultivation of GM crops such as brinjal and cotton. In 2013, Bt Brinjal became the country's first GM crop, followed by the approval of GM cotton in 2023.
The interim government initially tried to show goodwill towards Washington by buying US fuel, wheat, and aircraft in hopes of narrowing the trade deficit. But those gestures fell short. In the end, it was Bangladesh's powerful apparel lobby that pushed hardest for the deal, arguing that access to the US market had to be protected at any cost—even though the US accounts for only 18 percent of Bangladesh's exports. Their clout created an impression of urgency that overshadowed other risks. That urgency may yet come with a price, opening the door to GM foods, hormone-treated beef, and chlorine-washed poultry.
There is also the climate cost. Before Trump's re-election, momentum was building worldwide around localising food systems as a way to cut carbon emissions—the biggest driver of global warming. Trump's trade agenda has rolled back much of that progress, rewriting the rules to suit short-term US interests. Adapting to this new reality does not mean Bangladesh should embrace policies that risk long-term harm to its people, farmers, and environment.
Kamal Ahmed is head of the Media Reform Commission in Bangladesh and an independent journalist. His X handle is @ahmedka1.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
Comments