Emran Emon

On July 15, 2025, a special report published by the daily Bangla Outlook exposed the full text of a confidential letter from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to the Government of Bangladesh. The letter laid out an expansive reciprocal trade and security agreement—now proven to be signed under a strict non-disclosure agreement (NDA)—that has sparked outrage, concern, and fear across the nation. The 21-page agreement, titled “US-Bangladesh on Reciprocal Trade (Bangladesh Specific Commitments)”, unveils a wide array of binding commitments imposed on Bangladesh—many of which appear to bypass national interest in favor of foreign agendas.

Instead of receiving answers, the public witnessed an act of quiet suppression: multiple departments of the interim government reportedly pressured the editor of Bangla Outlook to retract the report. This single event, combined with the contents of the deal, raises grave questions: What price are we paying for external appeasement? And why must freedom of the press be sacrificed to protect a foreign agenda?

At first glance, the notion of a “reciprocal” agreement may appear balanced, but the details of the USTR letter reveal a drastically asymmetrical deal. Rather than a bilateral understanding, this agreement reads like a blueprint for economic domination. It is a list of directives—most favoring U.S. interests, many undermining Bangladesh’s domestic regulatory, trade, and security structures.

Six major chapters encompassing over a hundred conditions span everything from digital trade to defense imports. This includes:

• A forced increase in U.S. military and civilian aircraft imports.
• Exclusive reliance on FDA certification for medical and pharmaceutical goods.
• Long-term LNG and wheat import deals.
• Obligatory U.S. intellectual property frameworks.
• Data privacy concessions via CBPR and PRP protocols.
• Unrestricted entry of remanufactured U.S. goods.
• Demand to dismantle import conditions for U.S. food and agriculture products.                        This is not mutual benefit. This is submission under the pretext of cooperation.

One of the most alarming aspects is the economic component, particularly the clauses targeting Chinese imports. The agreement compels Bangladesh to actively reduce its imports from China while increasing U.S. imports in sectors ranging from military equipment to soybean oil. This artificially skewed trade direction undermines Bangladesh’s sovereign right to pursue independent economic partnerships.

Notably, the United States has also made it mandatory for Bangladesh to inform the WTO of every step taken under this agreement—formalizing the loss of our negotiating leverage on the global stage.

The question generally arises in this regard: Who gains? The U.S. economy. Who loses? The autonomy of Bangladesh.

Beyond economics, the inclusion of security-related clauses makes this agreement particularly dangerous. Banning Chinese logistics systems like LOGINK, allowing U.S. oversight of export controls, and demanding detailed customs data on American imports—all these create unprecedented openings for surveillance and intervention.

The condition that no U.S. product can be exported to another country without prior U.S. approval ties our economic diplomacy to Washington’s will. Have we now accepted a model where our ports, data, and national security policies must seek clearance from a foreign capital?

The deal dives deep into Bangladesh’s digital domain, demanding reforms to cyber ordinances and OTT policies. It calls for the opening up of sensitive communication spectrums and for the adoption of U.S.-standard privacy rules. These mandates make the country’s digital infrastructure vulnerable to outside influence—posing serious risks to personal data, internet freedom, and independent regulation.

The demand for Bangladesh to comply with foreign encryption rules and amend domestic OTT regulations infringes on our right to control our cyberspace, threatening civil liberties in the name of corporate and strategic advantage.

Perhaps the most chilling development isn’t even within the agreement—it is in the reaction to its exposure. Following the publication of the report by Bangla Outlook, various departments of the interim government reportedly pressured the editor to remove the article. And so it was withdrawn. What does this signify?

This act of censorship strikes at the very heart of our democracy. Bangladesh has long prided itself on a relatively vibrant press. But this moment reveals a government so eager to comply with U.S. pressure that it’s willing to betray its own people’s right to know.

If the U.S. truly champions freedom of the press, why this fury over factual reporting? If transparency offends our allies, perhaps we need new ones.

Renowned economist, policy analyst and  Center for Policy Dialogue (CPD) distinguished fellow Dr. Debapriya Bhattacharya called this agreement “the first of its kind” in the country’s history—signed not as a standard agreement but under a legally binding NDA. “The type of non-disclosure agreement (NDA) signed during tariff negotiations with the United States is the first of its kind in Bangladesh's history”, he said at a roundtable conference on July 21. He rightly pointed out that the use of an NDA instead of a “non-paper” removes public accountability and binds Bangladesh to secrecy.

This NDA even prevents our government from hiring lobbyists or seeking public counsel. This raises questions about democratic oversight: was parliament informed? Were trade unions, civil society, or the press consulted? This is not diplomacy—it is executive secrecy, and it is unacceptable.

What’s at stake here is not just trade, or tariffs, or exports—it is the very sovereignty of Bangladesh. To allow a foreign power to dictate our military purchases, digital policies, port security, agricultural standards, and legal frameworks is to accept the position of a client state. And to do so secretly, while suppressing dissent and hiding behind diplomatic jargon, is a betrayal of the very ideals on which our nation was founded.

An Agreement of Unequals: Who Benefits?

• U.S. Corporations: Gain near-total access to the Bangladeshi market without competition.
• Bangladeshi People: Left with higher dependence, fewer options, and compromised sovereignty.
• The Interim Government: Gains favor from Washington at the cost of public trust.
• China: Pushed away, not through diplomacy, but under coercive clauses.

This is not the strategic diversification Bangladesh needs. It is a dangerous dependency on a single hegemon.

In light of this, it is our democratic duty to demand full disclosure of the agreement. The public has a right to examine every clause, every condition, and every compromise. Any deal that implicates national security, economic policy, or civil liberty must be debated openly.

The interim government may argue that this was necessary to maintain U.S. relations—but national sovereignty cannot be the price of diplomacy.

A policy of such magnitude must not be decided by interim governments without parliamentary debate, civil society input, and public scrutiny. Trade is not a private affair between diplomats; it is a matter that shapes the fate of farmers, factory workers, consumers, and future generations.

The People of Bangladesh Must Ask:

• Why was the agreement kept secret?
• Why was a gag order signed?
• Who benefits, and who bears the cost?
• Why must media be silenced to protect a deal, unless the deal itself is damaging?

What we are witnessing is not just a dispute over tariffs. It is a test of our democracy, our sovereignty, and our collective resolve.

Will Bangladesh remain a nation that governs by consent, or one that bends to the will of foreign powers behind closed doors? Will it protect the freedom of the press, or punish it for doing its job? These are not rhetorical questions. They are the defining challenges of our time.

The people of Bangladesh must cherish: We must not trade our freedom and sovereignty for favors, nor silence truth in fear of foreign frowns.The people of Bangladesh deserve better. They deserve honesty, transparency, and a future not mortgaged to foreign interests. And they deserve to know: What exactly is the interim government hiding—and at what cost?

The writer is a journalist, columnist and global affairs analyst. He can be reached at emoncolumnist@gmail.com