Bangladesh has signed a Non‑Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with the United States during discussions on reducing tariffs, sparking debate among business circles and the public about whether it was necessary and if it safeguards the country’s national interest.
The US, however, views the agreement primarily through the lens of its own national security. The Ministry of Commerce has stated there is nothing in the deal that goes against Bangladesh’s interests.
Some observers note that, by making the arrangement a formal NDA rather than a non‑paper, it has become legally binding. Under its terms, if Bangladesh hires lobbyists to facilitate tariff reductions for exporting goods to the US, it will be prohibited from sharing related information with them. The interim government maintains that NDAs are standard in bilateral trade negotiations and pose no risk to national interest.
Sources said that NDAs can be unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral, typically used to restrict the disclosure of sensitive information for national security or public safety.
In a unilateral NDA, one party discloses certain information that must be kept confidential. Bilateral NDAs involve both sides sharing sensitive information, common in joint ventures or mergers. Multilateral NDAs involve three or more parties and can replace multiple bilateral agreements.
According to sources, the NDA with the US leaves Bangladesh unclear on many aspects of the finalized agreement, though they believe there is no longer any justification for keeping it secret.
Most commitments made will have to be implemented by the next elected government. Concessions reportedly include institutional obligations and bilateral arrangements with other countries tied to Bangladesh’s economic and geopolitical interests.
What experts say
Analysts warn that the US’ retaliatory tariffs run counter to World Trade Organization (WTO) multilateral trade rules and could harm the global economy, world trade, and Bangladesh’s exports. Higher tariffs could shrink major markets like the US, with potentially negative effects on Bangladesh’s export sector.
Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) Distinguished Fellow Dr Debapriya Bhattacharya said this is the first time in Bangladesh’s history such an NDA has been signed with a trade partner.
“By making it an NDA instead of a non‑paper, it has become binding. Even a hired lobbyist would not be able to access the information,” he said.
Another CPD Fellow, Dr Mustafizur Rahman, said that the secrecy is no longer justified and that the concessions granted should be assessed in terms of their economic value and institutional capacity.
He also pointed out that tariff concessions to the US could lead to significant revenue loss and higher costs for government procurement from US suppliers.
Media personality Kamal Ahmed, in a verified Facebook post, questioned whether the NDA relates only to keeping negotiation details confidential or to a longer‑term bilateral arrangement, which would warrant closer scrutiny.
Speaking to the correspondent, he said NDAs are normal in talks to prevent leaks but urged the government to clarify whether a formal deal was signed and whether it will be made public.
Commerce Adviser SK Bashiruddin assured that Bangladesh’s interests would not be compromised in the landmark trade agreement, saying a joint statement would follow once the deal is complete.
He described confidentiality clauses as standard under international rules to prevent interference from third parties, emphasising that the US’ main concern was its own national security.
He added that Bangladesh had managed to remove any provisions that could indirectly harm its interests and clarified that the US was not particularly eager about Bangladesh’s decision to purchase Boeing aircraft, as delivery would take years. Instead, talks focused on narrowing Bangladesh’s trade deficit through energy and agricultural imports.
