Starting January 21, 2026, those applying for a US B1/B2 (business/tourist) visa with a Bangladeshi passport who are deemed otherwise eligible during the interview process may be required to pay a visa bond of $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000. The US State Department's published list of eligible countries includes Bangladesh, and the amount will be determined at the interview.
It's essential to note that this bond is not a visa surcharge but a condition of travel. The State Department clearly states that the bond does not guarantee visa issuance. In other words, payment does not guarantee travel, and the decision may not even be final until payment is made. This ambiguity will likely create anxiety and distrust among applicants.
DHS records will confirm that if the individual has departed the country within the visa period, and if the individual fails to travel within the visa period or is denied entry at immigration, the bond is automatically refunded. However, the cash is tied up before the bond is returned.
At this point, the bond becomes a liquidity test rather than a guarantee of compliance. Even if the bond is assumed to be refunded, tying up cash for a certain period of time stifles households and businesses. Money returned but not available when desired is essentially lost.
Furthermore, even if an individual sincerely intends to return home, financial risk increases if plans are disrupted after arrival and an extension is required for medical or family reasons. The system is designed to anticipate malicious violators who overstay their visa or remain non-immigrant status, but in reality, unplanned behaviour can occur even among honest individuals.
The US State Department states its purpose is to prevent overstaying, but notes that it is based on historical B1/B2 overstay rates.
For Bangladesh's middle class, international travel is more of an extension of life and work than merely a luxury. These include sewing, IT, and trade negotiations, international exhibitions, visiting relatives, and short-term medical stays.
These are typically undertaken by individuals with a steady income but limited cash reserves. Even if the bond is returned, a temporary loss of $5,000 to $15,000 can halt rent and business funding.
For example, if a small sewing factory owner travels to meet with a US buyer, they must choose between cutting back on working capital to stash cash or filling the gap with short-term loans.
Traveling for medical purposes requires a bond in addition to medical expenses, delaying family decision-making.
The high-risk overstayers targeted by the program may not necessarily be the same as the legitimate travelers with limited funds who are actually excluded.
Although often overlooked, it is also essential to note that bonds are denominated in dollars. The burden of temporarily securing dollar funds is heavier for households whose living expenses are covered in local currency.
As a result, those with relatives or bank accounts in the US, foreign currency income, and the ability to quickly convert assets into cash are relatively advantageous. Bonds can thus easily function as a device to amplify inequality in society.
The term “pilot” here implies that, although it is temporary, it could become permanent if successful. Once implemented, a system is difficult to reverse.
If the idea of managing mobility based on cost takes hold, it's possible that administrative adjustments will lead to an expansion of eligible countries and stricter conditions.
Borders are not geographical, but a collection of conditions. When conditions are priced, mobility shifts from a right to financial selection.
Mobility is often described as a symbol of freedom, but in reality, it's measured by three things: National and individual credit, financial resources, and time availability. The current system makes this measurement explicit.
In practice, the system also changes the nature of mobility. The State Department requires visa holders subject to a bond to enter and exit the country through designated airports, listing nine such as Boston, JFK, and Washington Dulles.
However, this reduces flexibility in connecting flights, limits airfare options, and ultimately increases costs. Bonds, which appear like insurance, act thus as a double burden, tying up cash and restricting travel plans.
Not only do they discourage more people from traveling, but those who are able to travel are more likely to limit their stays and avoid unexpected events, impairing the quality of interaction itself.
Abolishing it will not be straightforward, because the issue is not a simple matter of good and evil and the US claims the goal is to deter past visa overstays.
However, when deterrence is designed with cost in mind, it inevitably affects even legitimate travelers.
Reduced mobility leads to reduced personal interaction. Business decision-making is delayed, and overseas experience is concentrated among a wealthy few.
In the long term, networks of the middle class that would have expanded beyond the country are instead concentrated within the country.
Trade and investment between nations are fundamentally supported by the movement of people. Travel friction is not unrelated to trade friction.
Finally, I want to emphasize that this is not so much a matter of people being unable to travel as it is more people giving up before they even get there.
As invisible abandonments pile up, relations between countries quietly weaken. Designing borders is also designing the future of society.
We need to rethink the question of who can travel and under what conditions, placing it at the heart of our economy and our lives.
The United States has a responsibility to increase transparency regarding application criteria and lifting restrictions.
At the same time, Bangladesh should also expedite practical guidance and negotiations for travelers.
Izumi Osaragi is an award-winning IFJ-accredited Japanese photojournalist. Views expressed are the writer’s own.