A reciprocal trade agreement signed between Bangladesh and the United States on February 9 has triggered widespread concern among economists, political leaders, and civil society groups, who warn that several of its provisions could undermine the country’s economic sovereignty and strategic autonomy.
Signed during the tenure of the interim government, the agreement has drawn criticism for containing binding clauses that may limit Bangladesh’s policy flexibility across key sectors, including trade, energy, agriculture, and national security.
Questions are mounting over whether the government will move to cancel or revise the deal, although no clear position has yet been announced.
A constitutional question has also emerged.
The Constitution of Bangladesh requires that all international agreements be submitted to the President for presentation in Parliament.
However, President Mohammed Shahabuddin told a newspaper in an interview that he had not been informed of the agreement, neither verbally nor in writing, raising concerns over procedural compliance.
Economist Anu Muhammad, speaking at a rally in front of the Bangladesh National Museum on April 17, described the deal as a “colonial bond,” warning that it could cost millions of jobs and allow Washington to influence Bangladesh’s trade and strategic decisions.
He called for the agreement to be rejected in Parliament.
Imbalance in obligations
Experts have pointed to structural imbalances in the agreement’s language.
Mustafizur Rahman, distinguished fellow at the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD), said that the phrase “Bangladesh shall” appears 108 times in the document, compared to just six instances of “USA shall.”
“This reflects an unequal mandate and highlights Bangladesh’s relatively weak bargaining position,” he told Dhaka Tribune, warning that such asymmetry could constrain policy autonomy and align Bangladesh’s regulatory framework more closely with US commercial interests.
He suggested that Bangladesh should use the 60-day ratification window to renegotiate contentious provisions.
Trade and import commitments
The agreement includes binding commitments for Bangladesh to import significant quantities of US goods.
These include 3.5 million tons of wheat over five years, increased imports of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and agricultural commodities, and the planned purchase of 14 Boeing aircraft.
Economists caution that these obligations may limit Bangladesh’s ability to source cheaper alternatives from countries such as India, China, or Russia.
If US imports are priced above global market rates, the government may be forced to provide subsidies, putting additional pressure on foreign exchange reserves and the balance of payments.
The deal also grants market access to certain processed pork products -- such as Black Forest ham, chorizo, and kielbasa -- despite existing restrictions on pork imports under Bangladesh’s policy framework.
In agriculture, Bangladesh is required to import at least 700,000 tons of US wheat annually, along with soybean, cotton, and related goods valued at up to $1.25 billion per year.
The total projected cost stands at approximately $3.5 billion, raising concerns about long-term food security and the viability of domestic agriculture.
Energy, defence and digital trade concerns
In the energy sector, the agreement encourages long-term imports of US liquefied natural gas (LNG), with deals estimated at $15 billion over 15 years.
Analysts warn that such commitments could limit diversification in energy sourcing.
The agreement also calls for expanded defence procurement from the United States while restricting purchases from unspecified countries, raising concerns over strategic independence.
One of the most debated provisions relates to digital trade.
Under the agreement, the United States may terminate the deal and reimpose tariffs of up to 37% if Bangladesh enters into digital trade arrangements with countries deemed contrary to US strategic interests.
Analysts say this could significantly restrict Bangladesh’s ability to diversify global partnerships.
Additional clauses may limit engagement with countries classified as “non-market economies” and could affect access to nuclear technology or fuel from alternative suppliers.
Institutional and policy implications
Within six months of implementation, Bangladesh is required to submit comprehensive subsidy data to the World Trade Organization.
Analysts say this could lead to external pressure to reduce subsidies in sectors such as agriculture.
Concerns have also been raised over institutional capacity and coordination.
Critics argue that the agreement’s broad commitments could complicate Bangladesh’s global trade relationships and deter future bilateral partnerships.
A precedent cited by analysts is Malaysia’s recent withdrawal from a similar reciprocal trade arrangement with the United States, following a US Supreme Court ruling that certain Trump-era tariffs were unlawful.
Political reactions and public debate
The agreement has sparked political debate across the spectrum.
Independent MP Rumeen Farhana has called for the deal to be tabled in Parliament, saying that the government retains the authority to revoke it if necessary.
Jamaat-e-Islami Ameer Dr Shafiqur Rahman said his party was not consulted on several international agreements signed during the interim government’s tenure, calling the lack of consultation “unfortunate.”
On April 27, a coalition of 13 left-leaning parties staged a protest march toward Parliament, demanding cancellation of what they described as an “unequal and anti-national” agreement.
Leaders warned that the deal could undermine domestic industries and increase the cost of essential goods.
Alauddin Mohammad, joint member secretary and co‑head of the International Relations Cell of the National Citizen Party (NCP), told Dhaka Tribune that the government should revise the agreement within the 60‑day provision, warning that its current form could undermine domestic production capacity.
Earlier, on March 24, State Minister for Foreign Affairs Shama Obaed said the agreement would be implemented in a way that safeguards national interests and that discussions would take place both inside and outside Parliament.
However, no visible progress has been reported.
Foreign Minister Khalilur Rahman, who also served as foreign adviser during the interim government, earlier said that major political parties -- including the BNP and Jamaat‑e‑Islami -- had been consulted prior to the signing.
However, conflicting statements from political leaders have raised questions about the extent of such consultations.
US position
Responding to criticism, US Ambassador Brent T Christensen described the agreement as “a shared commitment to Bangladesh’s future,” saying it ensures continued access to the US market at a tariff rate of 19%, compared to a potential 35% without the deal.
He added that the agreement aims to create a more balanced trade relationship between the two countries.
Meanwhile, on March 11, the Office of the United States Trade Representative launched an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 into “structural excess capacity” in 16 countries, including Bangladesh.
The US cited Bangladesh’s $6.15 billion trade surplus, driven largely by textile exports, and government incentives across 43 sectors as potential market distortions.
The agreement includes a termination clause allowing either party to withdraw with 60 days’ written notice, providing a legal pathway for cancellation.
However, experts caution that withdrawal could have diplomatic and economic consequences, including higher tariffs and strained bilateral relations.
As a result, many analysts view revision -- rather than outright cancellation -- as the more practical option, particularly if the government uses the ratification window to renegotiate contentious clauses.
