Reconsidering BART: Safeguarding Bangladesh’s public health and economic sovereignty
Signed days before the election, BART’s sweeping trade commitments risk raising medicine prices and constraining regulatory and industrial autonomy, warranting urgent review in the national interest
On 9 February 2026, the Interim Government (IG) of Bangladesh signed a comprehensive and legally enforceable Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (BART) with the United States.
The full text was released only after signing. In effect, an unelected government formulated and finalised a far-reaching public policy without meaningful consultation with stakeholders – just three days before a landmark general election.
Given BART's significant implications for medicine prices, drug availability, and domestic research and development, it is entirely reasonable for the citizens of Bangladesh to expect the present elected Government to revisit and renegotiate certain provisions. As a longstanding partner and major ally, the United States should also be responsive to Bangladesh's legitimate concerns.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
BART was negotiated hastily by the IG. Its shortcomings should not be attributed to either the United States or the current elected Government of Bangladesh. Rather, the focus now should be on ensuring that the Agreement serves the long-term interests of both nations.
The document is highly technical. What follows is a general overview of provisions that warrant closer scrutiny.
Discriminatory fiscal policy
BART explicitly requires the removal of VAT on US products. Meanwhile, local companies – including pharmaceutical manufacturers – must continue to charge VAT. This creates a clear competitive disadvantage for domestic producers and risks undermining Bangladesh's growing pharmaceutical sector.
Restrictive procurement policy
A troubling provision limits the procurement discretion of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Bangladesh must ensure that SOEs do not discriminate against US goods and instead purchase whichever option appears cheapest.
This could constrain entities such as Essential Drugs Company Limited (EDCL), which manufactures affordable medicines, from factoring in raw material costs or broader public-health considerations when making procurement decisions.
Unpredictable Rules of Origin (ROO) clause
The Rules of Origin (ROO) provision may prove particularly problematic. If US policymakers conclude that BART's benefits are flowing disproportionately to third countries (for example, China) or their nationals, they may impose stricter ROO requirements on Bangladeshi exports, potentially withdrawing preferential tariffs.
There is precedent for such measures. During President Donald Trump's first term, ROO provisions under North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were revised to require that 40–45% of a vehicle's production value be generated by workers earning at least $16 per hour. Similar shifts under BART could introduce uncertainty and risk for Bangladeshi exporters.
Asymmetrical enforceability rights
Notably, BART grants sole enforcement authority to the United States. In contrast, if the U.S. fails to comply with its obligations – such as lowering tariffs on certain Bangladeshi products – Bangladesh would have no recourse.
By contrast, comparable agreements negotiated with countries such as Cambodia and Malaysia reportedly allow for reciprocal enforcement and retaliation in cases of non-compliance. Such asymmetry undermines the very principle of reciprocity.
Undermining local drug regulations
BART provides that any drug registered in the United States shall be granted marketing authorisation by the Directorate General of Drug Administration (DGDA). Due to ambiguous drafting, it is unclear whether this provision eliminates the DGDA's current requirement that imported medicines submit a full regulatory dossier.
More concerning still, Bangladesh may be restricted from requiring US medicines to demonstrate stability in the country's climate zone. This could compromise patient safety and regulatory autonomy.
A related issue is that BART also requires Bangladesh to grant marketing authorisations to medicines approved in other countries, such as Israel. (NB: This is through the eCPP clause)
TRIPS-Plus intellectual property provisions
Bangladesh's Bangladesh Patent Act is grounded in the WTO's TRIPS Agreement framework, which seeks to balance intellectual property protection with public-health needs. BART, however, goes well beyond TRIPS obligations.
It requires Bangladesh to accede to and fully implement within five years several World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) treaties, including the Budapest Treaty, Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), and Patent Law Treaty (PLT). These "TRIPS-plus" obligations would substantially increase the number of patent monopolies and dramatically increase medicine prices for Bangladeshi patients.
Trade agreements must advance mutual prosperity without compromising public health, regulatory sovereignty, or industrial development.
BART, as presently structured, raises legitimate concerns that merit careful review. A transparent and balanced renegotiation – guided by democratic consultation and national interest – would not weaken Bangladesh's partnership with the United States. Rather, it would strengthen it by ensuring that cooperation rests on equity, sustainability, and shared respect.
Kaiser Kabir is the CEO of Renata PLC.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.
