With just days remaining before the February 12 parliamentary election, Bangladesh’s interim government is preparing to sign a tariff-related trade agreement with the United States in Washington on February 9.
The pre-election timing, coupled with strict confidentiality around the terms and limited stakeholder consultation, has sparked debate.
At the heart of the controversy is whether an outgoing administration should finalize a long-term arrangement whose consequences will be borne by the next elected government.
Political leaders, economists, and business groups argue that a deal with wide-ranging trade and fiscal implications should have been left to the incoming government. Any binding commitments—particularly on tariffs, imports, or procurement—could restrict policy flexibility for years.
Some fear that if provisions are perceived as one-sided, attempts by a future administration to amend them may lead to diplomatic friction or trade retaliation. The concern is less about engagement with Washington and more about process, timing, and transparency.
Tariff negotiations, trade imbalance
Commerce Adviser Sk Bashir Uddin said Bangladesh is seeking further reductions in additional US tariffs but declined to specify the likely outcome. The government’s stated goal is to secure zero tariffs on readymade garment (RMG), the country’s principal export to the US market.
In April 2025, President Donald Trump imposed reciprocal tariffs on nearly 100 countries, including Bangladesh.
The initial 37% rate was later reduced to 20%, effective August 1. When combined with a pre-existing 15% duty, total US tariffs on Bangladeshi goods stand at 35%.
Officials argue that Bangladesh succeeded in lowering the initial rate significantly, but critics note that competitors continue to enjoy varying tariff advantages.
To address Washington’s concerns over a roughly $6 billion annual trade deficit, Bangladesh expanded imports of US wheat, soybean oil, cotton, and other agricultural products.
It also advanced a plan to purchase 14 Boeing aircraft by 2035, with payments spread over 10 to 20 years.
The national carrier currently operates 14 flyable aircraft out of a fleet of 19 and projects a requirement of at least 47 aircraft by 2035.
Following a techno-economic feasibility review, a negotiation team led by Planning Adviser Wahiduddin Mahmud entered talks with Boeing.
On December 30, the airline’s board approved the purchase of eight 787-10 Dreamliners, two 787-9 Dreamliners, and four 737-8 aircraft.
Bangladesh earns more than Tk100,000 crore annually from exports to the US. The aircraft deal alone could cost Tk30,000–35,000 crore over the long term, raising questions about fiscal priorities and debt exposure.
Under the previous Awami League government, a decision had been taken to procure 10 aircraft from Airbus.
The interim administration later shifted to Boeing amid changes in US tariff policy and broader trade negotiations.
Confidentiality and oversight
A non-disclosure agreement signed on June 13 last year bars disclosure of negotiation details, intensifying criticism from business leaders and policy analysts.
Many argue that sectors directly affected—particularly RMG exporters—should have been consulted more comprehensively.
Dhaka Chamber of Commerce and Industry President Taskin Ahmed said stakeholders remain unaware of the agreement’s contents and questioned the rationale for signing it days before the election.
CPD Distinguished Fellow Prof Mustafizur Rahman said at least the broad contours of the deal should have been shared to ensure democratic accountability. Fellow economist Debapriya Bhattacharya cautioned that the agreement carries long-term economic and geopolitical implications that extend beyond tariffs.
Economists suggest Bangladesh could seek future adjustments through the existing Trade and Investment Cooperation Framework Agreement (Ticfa) platform with the US.
However, the scope for renegotiation will depend on how rigid the final commitments are and whether they include binding procurement or import clauses.
The government maintains that the agreement will safeguard export competitiveness, stabilize market access, and strengthen bilateral trade ties. Critics counter that the combination of secrecy, election-eve urgency, and limited consultation risks constraining the policy space of the next administration.