Originally posted in The Daily Star on 21 February 2026
Economist questions hurried signing of US trade deal
Bangladesh should reassess its recently signed reciprocal trade deal with the United States
The core justification behind the reciprocal trade agreement signed by Bangladesh with the United States has become questionable after the US Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s sweeping tariffs, said an eminent economist today.
“If the original legal basis of those tariff measures has been cancelled, then the core justification of the agreement also becomes questionable,” Mustafizur Rahman, a distinguished fellow at the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD), told The Daily Star over the phone.
His remarks came after the US Supreme Court struck down many of the sweeping tariff measures introduced by the Trump administration. Subsequently, the US president announced a fresh 10 percent additional tariff on imports from all countries.
Bangladesh should reassess its recently signed reciprocal trade deal with the United States in light of the latest developments in Washington, Rahman said.
Under the earlier framework, Bangladesh had been facing a proposed 37 percent reciprocal tariff, which was reportedly negotiated down to 19 percent, subject to certain conditions.
However, as the court ruling has altered the policy landscape, Rahman noted that the agreement has not yet come into force and there remains room for further discussion.
According to him, the deal is scheduled to take effect two months after the exchange of formal notifications. “Since that process has not been completed, the space for dialogue is still open,” he said.
Rahman argued that as the original tariff structure no longer stands, the conditions Bangladesh agreed to—including expanded market access and various concessions—may also require reconsideration.
He also pointed out that the newly announced 10 percent additional tariff would apply to all countries. “In that sense, Bangladesh is not being singled out,” he said, adding that concerns should be assessed in a comparative global context.
However, he cautioned that the US administration retains authority under Section 232 of its trade law to impose product-specific or country-specific tariffs on grounds such as national security.
“If such measures are introduced targeting particular countries or products, Bangladesh will need to continue negotiations accordingly,” he said.
If finalised, Bangladesh could face a total tariff burden of 26.5 percent—comprising the new 10 percent duty in addition to the existing 16.5 percent rate.
Rahman also raised concerns over the timing of the agreement, reportedly signed on February 9, just two days before the national election.
“It is important to understand why there was such urgency and who had an interest in expediting the process,” he said, suggesting that a newly elected government would ordinarily be expected to review and endorse such commitments.
He emphasised the need for close monitoring of developments and transparent reassessment of Bangladesh’s obligations under the agreement.
“If certain commitments are no longer necessary in the changed context, that should be communicated clearly,” he added.
