The full legal text of the United States–Bangladesh “Agreement on Reciprocal Trade,” signed on February 9, 2026, in Washington, has brought into sharp focus the scope of commitments undertaken by Bangladesh, prompting fresh scrutiny from economists, former officials, and policy observers over its implications for trade policy, regulatory authority, and domestic industries.
The document, recently made public by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), outlines detailed provisions governing tariffs, market access, regulatory standards, and dispute settlement, according to the full agreement text released by the USTR . While the interim government led by Chief Adviser Dr. Muhammad Yunus had initially framed the agreement as a step toward strengthening bilateral economic ties, the release of the full text has triggered renewed debate across Bangladesh over both its substance and the process through which it was negotiated.
Entry into force and legal status
According to the agreement text, the deal has not yet taken effect. It states:
“This Agreement shall enter into force 60 days after the Parties exchange written notifications confirming completion of their respective legal procedures.”
As of now, no public confirmation has been issued by either side indicating that such notifications have been exchanged, leaving the agreement in a pending state.
Tariff commitments and structural imbalance
The agreement establishes a framework under which Bangladesh is required to reduce or eliminate tariffs on U.S. goods:
“Bangladesh shall reduce or eliminate tariffs and other duties on originating goods of the United States in accordance with schedules annexed to this Agreement.”
By contrast, U.S. commitments are more limited and conditional:
“The United States shall maintain its tariff measures except as otherwise provided in its schedule of concessions.”
Economists have described this structure as asymmetrical, noting that Bangladesh’s obligations involve broader and more immediate market opening, while U.S. concessions remain selective.
At a media briefing held on March 10, 2026, in Dhaka, the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) said the agreement could result in significant fiscal consequences. The think tank estimated that Bangladesh may lose approximately Tk 1,327 crore annually in import tax revenue due to tariff reductions on U.S. products. It warned that the deal could have “significant implications for Bangladesh’s fiscal and budgetary framework” and raise “questions about the country’s economic sovereignty.”
Non-discrimination and domestic policy constraints
The agreement also includes a national treatment obligation:
“Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of the other Party, ensuring no less favorable treatment than that accorded to its own like goods.”
Trade analysts say this clause limits Bangladesh’s ability to provide preferential treatment to domestic industries or adopt protective policies that disadvantage imported U.S. goods. Such constraints could affect industrial policy tools commonly used to support emerging sectors.
Agriculture and food safety provisions
Several provisions relate directly to agricultural imports and food safety standards. The agreement states:
“Bangladesh shall ensure market access for agricultural goods of the United States, including livestock, dairy, and grain products, subject to the terms of this Agreement.”
It further provides:
“Bangladesh shall recognize the regulatory determinations of the United States with respect to food safety, sanitary, and phytosanitary measures, unless otherwise justified under international standards.”
These clauses have drawn attention in Bangladesh, particularly among stakeholders in the livestock and dairy sectors, who fear increased competition from imported products.
Intellectual property obligations
The agreement includes provisions requiring Bangladesh to strengthen intellectual property protections:
“Bangladesh shall adopt and maintain measures consistent with international intellectual property standards, including protections for patents, data exclusivity, and enforcement mechanisms.”
Industry observers say such measures could affect Bangladesh’s pharmaceutical sector, which has relied on flexibility under international rules to produce generic medicines.
Procurement and commercial engagement
The text also encourages increased commercial engagement between the two countries:
“The Parties shall promote the purchase and use of goods and services originating from each other’s territories, consistent with the objectives of this Agreement.”
While not framed as a binding requirement, analysts say this provision could influence procurement decisions involving sectors such as energy, aviation, and agriculture.
Dispute settlement and enforcement
The agreement sets out procedures for dispute resolution:
“Any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be resolved through consultations and, if necessary, arbitration in accordance with procedures established herein.”
It also allows for enforcement measures:
“A Party may adopt appropriate measures, including suspension of concessions, in response to non-compliance.”
Additionally, a national security clause provides broad discretion:
“Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent a Party from taking any action it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests.”
Trade experts note that such provisions allow unilateral action under broadly defined circumstances.
Statements from former officials
The agreement has generated growing concern within Bangladesh, with several former officials publicly distancing themselves from it.
Former Law Adviser Asif Nazrul, speaking in an interview with BBC Bangla, as reported by Bangladeshi media on April 6, 2026, said:
“I was never called to any of the agreements that were signed with the United States.”
His comments indicate that he was not involved in discussions related to the agreement during his tenure.
Former Fisheries and Livestock Adviser Farida Akhter voiced criticism during a roundtable discussion titled “Power and Energy Crisis: CAB’s 13-Point Demand and Public Expectations,” held on March 14, 2026, at the Dhaka Stream office in Panthapath, Dhaka. She said:
“Even knowing that it was against national interest, I could not stop this agreement from within the government.”
She added:
“Through this agreement, obligations have been created to import meat and many dairy products.”
In remarks reported by Bangla-language media following the same event, she also said:
“We are making a mistake thinking the agreement was signed just three days before the election. The process started earlier… because of a non-disclosure agreement, even people within the government could not know everything.”
Sectoral implications
Analysts say the agreement could have varying effects across sectors.
In agriculture, increased imports may affect domestic farmers, particularly in livestock and dairy. In manufacturing and small and medium enterprises, greater competition from U.S. goods may challenge local producers. In the pharmaceutical sector, stronger intellectual property rules may limit flexibility in generic drug production.
Public and policy response
The criticism has extended beyond former government officials to prominent economists and political figures.
Public reaction, reflected in Bangla and English-language media coverage, has included concerns over transparency, economic balance, and long-term policy implications. Some analysts and business groups have called for a review of the agreement before it enters into force.
Public opinion against the agreement is growing, with many citizens expressing concern over its potential impact on national interests. Calls have intensified in some quarters to bring those involved in the agreement under legal scrutiny, while even individuals previously associated with the interim political transition have become increasingly critical.
Economist Professor Anu Muhammad, who played a leading role in movements against the Sheikh Hasina government and in the political developments that led to the formation of the interim administration, said:
“Those involved in the trade agreement with the United States must be brought under punishment.”
According to him, by signing the trade agreement, the interim government has left Bangladesh “tied hand and foot.” He called for the names of those involved in the agreement to be disclosed and for them to be brought under trial and punishment.
He made these remarks while presiding over a seminar titled “Why the Trade Agreement with the United States is Dangerous for Bangladesh,” held on Friday, March 13, 2026, in Bijoynagar, Dhaka.
Expressing disappointment over the role played by certain individuals from both the then interim government and the current administration prior to the agreement’s entry into force, he said that what has been observed so far in Bangladesh regarding the agreement and related activities is that “the United States comes first,” adding that this situation should change.
Speaking further, he said Bangladesh had been placed in a “grave danger” during the tenure of the interim government and expressed concern over how the country could navigate or reverse that situation. He noted that one of those involved in the agreement at the time, Khalilur Rahman, has since been appointed foreign minister by the BNP and has described the agreement as a positive one.
Anu Muhammad added:
“Just think—someone who calls such an agreement a good one is now Bangladesh’s foreign minister. And he is also claiming that the BNP–Jamaat knew about it.”
Broader context
The agreement was signed in the context of Bangladesh’s ongoing political transition following the August 2024 change in government. Since then, rights groups have reported incidents of political violence, restrictions on media, and administrative changes that critics say have affected governance structures.
Within this broader environment, the trade agreement has become a focal point for debate over economic policy, institutional processes, and international engagement.
Current status
With the agreement yet to enter into force, attention is now focused on whether Bangladesh will proceed with formal ratification or seek modifications in response to domestic concerns.
The publication of the full text has ensured that the debate is now grounded in the agreement’s actual provisions, setting the stage for continued scrutiny by policymakers, economists, and the public in the weeks ahead.
