Trump’s New Tariff Threat: What It Means for Bangladesh and Why We Shouldn’t Panic

Mohammad Bakhtiar Rana:

Besides South Korea and Japan, the largest trading partner for US—where the U.S. has already imposed a 25% tariff—Trump on Monday sent letters to 14 other countries announcing new tariff rates. Among the most affected are Myanmar and Laos (40%), Thailand and Cambodia (36%), Serbia and Bangladesh (35%), Indonesia (32%), South Africa (30%), and Malaysia and Tunisia (25%).

In the broader context of the U.S.’s increasingly protectionist trade stance, the 35% tariff on Bangladesh isn’t entirely unexpected. The previous rate was about 10%, and an additional 25% has now been added. Still, this does not necessarily signal a permanent situation—there is room for negotiation, and trade disputes of this nature typically take 2–3 years to resolve.

Bangladesh must respond strategically, not emotionally. One practical step could be reassessing U.S. imports and considering tariff concessions in a reciprocal move—especially since American goods are not widely imported in Bangladesh due to their higher prices compared to alternatives from China, Japan, and others.

For Bangladeshi exporters, particularly in the apparel sector, it’s important to recognize that global trade comes with inherent risks, including sudden tariff shocks. Instead of panicking, the focus should be on product innovation, differentiation, and short-term market diversification. U.S. consumers and businesses are unlikely to tolerate prolonged high tariffs, which would raise domestic prices and strain supply chains. Moreover, Trump’s aggressive tariff policies do not enjoy strong support from the broader U.S. business community, making them unlikely to last beyond his administration.

While the U.S. is a significant export destination, it is not Bangladesh’s largest apparel market—the European Union holds that position. Meanwhile, Bangladesh has already begun exploring and gaining access to some new emerging markets like China and Russia, which is a positive step toward reducing overdependence on a single market.

The letter Bangladesh received—along with those sent to 13 other countries—seems more symbolic than substantial. It serves to project Trump’s “tough-on-trade” image domestically ahead of elections, rather than reflect any major economic shift. The U.S. cannot continue down this confrontational path in the long term without damaging its own economic interests. Things will likely stabilize in time, and Bangladesh should remain calm, strategic, and ready to negotiate.

(The writer is a Professor of International Business and Strategy Aalborg University, Denmark)