Just days before Bangladesh's elections on February 12, 2026, and the formation of a new government, the previous interim administration signed a trade deal with the US, which is being hailed abroad as a historic agreement.
The United States-Bangladesh Reciprocal Trade Agreement appears to offer only marginal tariff reductions on Bangladeshi exports and limited tariff-free access for certain garments. However, the deal also includes a $3.5 billion pledge by Bangladesh to import US agricultural products such as wheat, soybeans, cotton, and corn. This clause is more than a simple commercial deal and risks disrupting domestic agricultural markets and endangering rural livelihoods.
Major news outlets, including Reuters, reported that last October, Bangladesh approved purchasing around 220,000 metric tons of US wheat through a government agreement aimed at reducing trade tensions with Washington, which had been caused by tariffs due to Donald Trump's administration.
Reports stated that the Cabinet Committee on Government Purchase approved the deal on Tuesday. The wheat, costing $308 per ton, will be imported through Agrocorp International, a Singapore-based trading company authorised by the US Wheat Associates.
In FY2024-25, rice imports reached approximately $682.4m, the highest in seven years. During the same period, the country imported around 1.305 million tons of rice, one of its highest levels ever. Along with a new wheat purchase approval, Dhaka intends to import about 700,000 tons of US wheat annually over the next five years as part of its broader trade and food security strategy.
This involves more than economics and is a matter of strategy and geopolitical influence. The deal was negotiated during a period of weak democratic oversight by an interim administration with limited authority to bind a future government to a promise.
Without proper scrutiny, thorough analysis, stakeholder consultation, or parliamentary debate, this billion-dollar farm import promise acts like a silent earthquake, potentially destabilizing Bangladesh’s agricultural and food security systems.
Trade agreements of this size usually undergo thorough review, but in Bangladesh, negotiations ended just days before the election, with details shared mainly through diplomatic statements rather than transparent texts or debates.
Critics say the timing suggests the interim government rushed into a framework without sufficient consultation with stakeholders such as farmers and economists. International observers, including editorials in newspapers and commentary, describe the deal as “unequal, rushed, and risky," raising concerns about economic sovereignty. Bangladesh is being asked to accept long-term commitments shaping agricultural policy and markets without proper public or parliamentary approval.
The US aims to expand agricultural exports, with Bangladesh a key buyer given its large population and import needs. Securing purchase commitments for agricultural commodities, including soybeans, wheat, cotton, and corn, guarantees US demand. For a small, developing economy with trade imbalances, such a deal is asymmetric.
Bangladesh’s agriculture remains vital, with millions of smallholder farmers producing crops. Their livelihoods are fragile and vulnerable to market shifts and imports. Allowing large-scale imports of subsidised US wheat, soy, corn, and cotton can lower local crop prices and discourage domestic farming. Global trade studies show import surges often harm local farmers in developing countries, who can't compete with heavily-subsidized exports from developed nations.
An EastPost analysis warns that recent US trade deals in South Asia, including those with Bangladesh, may threaten economic sovereignty by forcing countries into unbalanced commitments that mainly benefit Washington. Bangladesh might accept market access and large import duties under political pressure, with domestic debate muted and the deal’s fine print could increase dependence.
Overall, Bangladesh risks falling into the same trap of unfair trade arrangements that could limit its long-term policy options.
For rural Bangladeshis, the implications are clear: More cheap imports make it harder to sustain local production, squeezing incomes and increasing dependence on imported staples. This runs counter to the long-held goal of building agricultural resilience and food security within Bangladesh.
Large trade commitments raise sovereignty issues, tying Bangladesh’s market strategies to external suppliers. During global disruptions such as conflict, supply chain issues, or climate events, Bangladesh’s ability to adapt may be limited.
Past crises in 2008 and 2022 showed that nations with strict import obligations struggle to adjust. Future shocks might challenge Bangladesh’s capacity to maintain affordable food, especially if legally bound to specific import volumes from major suppliers.
The most troubling aspect isn't the deal's economic makeup but the process. Trade frameworks with long-term commitments shouldn't be rushed, especially when affecting vital sectors like agriculture and food security.
This purchase commitment thus threatens to strain Bangladesh’s farm economy by exposing local farmers to import surges they cannot handle. As these structured imports replace domestic production, the resulting ripple effects could reduce rural jobs in farming, transportation, storage, and agro-processing -- slowing employment growth in sectors that employ millions of low-income workers.
Without effective safeguards, reliance on imported food will increase, raising food security concerns. Any agreement that undermines Bangladesh’s farm livelihoods and employment should undergo a national review to prevent risks to its agriculture, rural communities, and food security.
Dr Ezaz Mamun is a freelance contributor from Australia.