President Donald Trump’s recent proposal to impose a 35% tariff on imports from Bangladesh has ignited significant debate, prompting concerns about its implications for both countries and the broader global trade system.

This proposed tariff–down two percentage points from an earlier suggestion–calls for scrutiny of its economic justification, political motivations, and potential effects, especially on Bangladesh’s critical apparel industry.

Although the U.S. does not heavily depend on Bangladeshi imports, it remains Bangladesh’s largest export market. The apparel sector, central to Bangladesh’s export economy, employs millions–most of them women–who have gradually secured stronger positions in the formal labor market.

Over time, they have benefited from improved labor standards and have played a key role in driving economic progress. And the United States has historically supported this progress through various trade incentives and engagements.

The proposed tariff risks reversing these gains.

While proponents of tariffs often cite trade imbalances or the need to protect domestic industries, this particular proposal is more about political maneuvering than addressing real economic disparities.

This is because Bangladesh has consistently shown willingness to engage in fair, reciprocal trade talks and view the unilateral imposition of a steep duty as a sign of disregard for long-standing partnerships.

Importantly, Bangladesh has never benefited from the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), which offers duty-free access to many developing nations. Even so, it has remained competitive globally–despite facing tariffs of 15–17% from other countries–largely due to its focus on empowering its workforce rather than relying on exploitative labor.

Beyond its immediate economic effects, the proposed tariff also raises broader concerns about the future of global trade. Such actions may mark a shift away from cooperative economic development toward more short-sighted, nationalistic policies.

The United States has long regarded the advancement of countries like Bangladesh–through women’s economic empowerment, improved labor rights, and industrial development–as integral to promoting global stability and democratic values.

A departure from these commitments risks undermining broader strategic and developmental goals.

The proposed tariff has also sparked accusations of inconsistency. While aiming to restrict Bangladeshi exports through higher duties, the U.S. continues to seek expanded access for its own agricultural and energy products in the Bangladeshi market.

Although Bangladesh remains open to fair competition, it has to be taken into account that mutual benefit is a cornerstone of any sustainable trade partnership. The U.S. regularly supports its domestic industries through export credit guarantees and shipping subsidies–tools that could be adapted to promote more equitable trade dynamics with partners like Bangladesh.

Why is abrupt shift in trade policy problematic?

In a global economy, stable and transparent policymaking is essential. Abrupt shifts–from promoting integration to imposing punitive trade measures without adequate justification or dialogue–risk eroding trust and creating volatility in international relations.

While politically expedient rhetoric may resonate in the short term, effective economic policy requires consistency, foresight, and respect for long-term commitments. The proposed 35% tariff may generate momentary political gains, but it threatens to reverse years of progress in trade, development, and strategic cooperation–progress that ultimately aligns with America’s own interests.

Washington needs to understand that Bangladesh now stands at a pivotal juncture as it prepares to graduate from Least Developed Country status. This transition marks more than just a change in classification–it represents inclusive, resilient growth built on the foundation of an empowered workforce, with women playing a central role in the nation’s economic transformation.

In Bangladesh, millions of women now participate in the formal economy and these women are not merely contributors to production; they are catalysts for social stability, economic mobility, and empowerment in a region where such opportunities have traditionally been limited.

The United States has long positioned itself as an advocate for women’s rights and global development. Yet, moving forward with the proposed tariff risks contradicting these very principles.

By undermining a fragile but promising economic transformation–one closely aligned with the values the U.S. has historically supported–this policy could do more harm than good.

If the aim is to support American producers, there are more effective and cooperative approaches. Bangladesh represents a growing market for American exports such as soybeans, cotton, liquefied natural gas, and other goods.

With the right instruments–like export credit guarantees and competitive logistics support–U.S. products could become more accessible and attractive to Bangladeshi consumers, enhancing American manufacturing without resorting to punitive trade measures.

This is what balanced trade looks like: a relationship grounded in reciprocity and mutual advantage, not coercion.

Tariff is not the lone factor

Beyond tariffs, there are systemic challenges that hinder trade. Non-tariff barriers–such as complex regulations, inconsistent standards, and opaque bureaucratic processes–often discourage exporters on both sides.

A truly forward-looking trade policy would address these issues, making trade more efficient and inclusive.

If the U.S. is to lead in shaping the future of global commerce like it has been doing for the last century, it must do so with a new set of responsibility and vision. That includes investing in transparent, equitable frameworks that allow developing economies like Bangladesh to engage fairly and meaningfully in international markets.

Bangladesh remains ready to deepen its partnership with the United States. We are open to negotiation, committed to collaboration, and eager to build a stronger, more resilient trade relationship. But that effort depends on a fundamental decision in Washington: whether to treat trade as a shared opportunity or a political weapon.

Policy Czars in Washington needs to realize that this moment is not about competition in its most cynical form. It is about a shared journey toward sustainable prosperity. And in that journey–as in any marathon–true leadership means helping others move forward, not holding them back.

Rather than imposing punitive tariffs that risk undermining these priorities, the United States has an opportunity to embrace a more constructive, values-driven path.

That begins with acknowledging the critical role women play in Bangladesh’s economy–especially in the apparel sector, which not only sustains the country’s largest export industry but also serves as a lifeline for millions of female workers. Supporting industries like this would be a natural extension of America’s stated commitment to gender equity and inclusive development.

Equally important is the need to promote genuine export competitiveness. Rather than restricting access for foreign goods, the U.S. could focus on enhancing the appeal and affordability of its own exports to Bangladesh.

With strategic use of trade tools–such as financing programs, logistical support, and targeted market-entry assistance–American producers could find fertile ground in a growing consumer base, gaining market share through innovation rather than protectionism.

A sustainable trade relationship also depends on deeper cooperation. That means establishing clear and practical programs to tackle non-tariff barriers and improve regulatory transparency.

A rules-based, mutually beneficial framework would ensure a level playing field and promote long-term stability between the two nations.

The growth-driven approach

Finally, fostering stronger economic ties requires investing in the foundations of growth.

By supporting human capital in Bangladesh–through initiatives that enhance education, healthcare, and purchasing power–the U.S. would help create a more robust and resilient market for its exports.

The prosperity of Bangladeshi consumers is directly linked to the future of U.S. business success in the region.

It has to be comprehended that this is not an abstract policy debate–it’s a decision with immediate consequences for millions of lives. President Trump has the chance to pivot away from a strategy of economic punishment toward one of strategic partnership, strengthening rather than weakening the ties between the two countries.

Bangladesh’s economic history is defined by its resilience. From navigating the end of the global textile quota system to competing globally under some of the world’s highest tariffs, Bangladesh has consistently adapted and endured.

It has done so not by demanding special treatment, but by asking only for a fair shot.

When leaders talk about securing “great deals,” it’s important to remember that real progress comes from mutual gain. A steep tariff on Bangladeshi exports is unlikely to revive American manufacturing in any meaningful way, but it could devastate the livelihoods of those who are at the forefront of social and economic change in Bangladesh.

That, in turn, weakens their ability to buy American goods, undermining the very trade potential the U.S. seeks to unlock.

The issue isn’t whether the U.S. should increase exports to Bangladesh–that goal is widely supported–but how to achieve it in a way that is both effective and principled. The path forward lies in improving the competitiveness of U.S. goods, addressing logistical and financial barriers, and building stronger export support systems.

As Bangladesh’s economy grows, so too will its demand for quality American products.

In the end, trade policy should be a reflection of the values a nation claims to uphold. The United States has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to gender equality and inclusive global development.

Imposing tariffs that disproportionately harm industries employing millions of women would stand in stark contrast to those values. A genuinely “great deal” would be one that uplifts both nations–driving shared prosperity, respecting human dignity, and forging a durable partnership for the future.

—

Dr. Rashed Al Mahmud Titumir is a professor at the Development Studies Department of Dhaka University