The agreement trims one tariff only by forcing a new kind of dependence: raw materials as the price of market access.
Bangladesh’s reciprocal trade agreement with America was sold as damage control for a garment economy that lives and dies by the US consumer. Yet the real bargain sits in the annexes and sub-clauses: tariff relief that appears conditional, capped—and potentially illusory once the base duty remains.
What the deal really does
Dhaka faces a 19% “reciprocal” tariff layered on top of America’s existing MFN duty (about 16.5%) for many apparel lines, lifting the headline burden to roughly the mid-30s. Officials say the 19% component can fall to zero if garments use US cotton (and some man-made fibres)—but that still leaves the MFN duty intact.
Why the fine print matters
Article language points to “zero reciprocal tariffs” only for a “to-be-specified volume” tied to how much US fibre Bangladesh buys. In effect, the concession looks less like liberalisation and more like a rebate voucher redeemable only with American inputs—shifting value back to US growers and fibre makers.
What Bangladesh should do next
Dhaka needs immediate clarification on quota volumes, product coverage (including accessories), verification rules and timelines—or factories cannot price orders. The industry’s bigger risk is strategic: if rivals secure similar exemptions, Bangladesh loses differentiation while inheriting a new sourcing constraint. A trade deal that merely rearranges dependence is not a safety net; it is a tighter leash.
