US Foreign Policy Shifts and Their Impact on Bangladesh and South Asia’s Political Landscape
Afsana Rahman Antora
Tamim Muntasir
Introduction :
On January 20, 2025, Donald J. Trump was inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States, marking the beginning of his second, non-consecutive term. His return to office has generated widespread discourse regarding the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the context of his “America First” doctrine. This policy framework, characterized by economic protectionism, trade restrictions, and a reassessment of traditional alliances, suggests a fundamental shift in the United States’ global engagement strategy. The nationalist and transactional approach that defined Trump’s first term (2017–2021) is expected to shape his second-term policies, with significant implications for global geopolitics, particularly in South Asia.
Trump’s approach to foreign policy diverges sharply from the globalist orientation of the previous administration. As a hegemonic power, the United States has historically sought to maintain global influence by empowering and controlling regional allies. However, under Trump’s leadership, the balance between strategic empowerment and control appears to be shifting, with an increasing focus on unilateral economic interests. The imposition of high tariffs and trade restrictions, particularly in the context of U.S.-China rivalry, further underscores this protectionist agenda. Such shifts are likely to have far-reaching consequences for South Asia, a region deeply interconnected with U.S. economic and strategic interests.
This paper seeks to examine the implications of U.S. foreign policy shifts under the Trump administration on South Asia, with a particular focus on Bangladesh. It aims to contextualize these changes within the broader geopolitical landscape, evaluating how Trump’s policies may influence regional stability, economic partnerships, and diplomatic alignments. Furthermore, while the U.S. president wields significant influence in shaping foreign policy, this study also considers the structural limitations of presidential power within the broader institutional framework of American foreign policy-making. By assessing these dynamics, the paper provides a comprehensive understanding of how the evolving U.S. strategy under Trump is likely to impact South Asia and Bangladesh, ultimately shaping future regional engagements and power structures.
Power of US president
The U.S. political system was designed with a thoughtful balance of power to protect against authoritarian rule. At the heart of this system lies the Constitution, which divides authority among three distinct branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial. This structure ensures that no single entity wields unchecked control, embodying a fundamental commitment to democratic principles.
In this system, Congress, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate, holds legislative power, crafting the laws that govern the nation. The President, as the leader of the executive branch, is tasked with enforcing these laws, commanding the armed forces, and managing foreign relations. Meanwhile, the judiciary, led by the Supreme Court and supported by lower federal courts, interprets laws and ensures they comply with the Constitution. This intricate arrangement of shared responsibilities creates a dynamic interplay between branches, limiting presidential authority and reinforcing accountability.
The President’s role is both influential and carefully regulated. As the nation’s leader, the President has the authority to negotiate treaties, appoint ambassadors, and host foreign dignitaries though these diplomatic decisions often require the Senate’s approval. Domestically, the President can sign bills into law or veto them, though Congress retains the power to override such vetoes with a two-thirds majority. The Commander-in-Chief oversees the military during times of war, deploying troops to safeguard national security (US Constitution).
Yet, there are defined boundaries to this considerable power. The President cannot unilaterally create laws, declare war, control federal spending, or interpret legislation. Additionally, high-level appointments, such as Cabinet members and Supreme Court Justices, must be confirmed by the Senate. These constraints are essential in maintaining democratic governance.
But this time, most importantly, Trump is getting leverage that in both Houses there is a Republican majority. He can use this to his advantage. Nevertheless, not all republicans are strong supporters of Donald Trump. Unlike the South Asian political system, they can vote against their party leaders.
For instance, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trump’s request to lift an injunction blocking his order restricting birthright citizenship. The order, signed in January 2025, aimed to deny citizenship to children of non-citizen or non-resident parents. A federal judge ruled it unconstitutional, and similar rulings followed. The case may head to the Supreme Court. (Reuters, 2025)
Redefining the U.S. Policy Landscape
Following the swearing-in ceremony, President Trump promptly signed a series of executive orders that diverged sharply from the policies of the previous Biden administration. These actions signal a significant shift in U.S. domestic and international priorities, with widespread implications. One of Trump’s first moves was to withdraw the United States from key international agreements. By exiting the Paris Climate Agreement, the administration signaled a retreat from global climate responsibility, undermining years of cooperative environmental efforts. Similarly, pulling out of the World Health Organization (WHO) sent shockwaves through international health circles, raising concerns about global disease prevention and health diplomacy (CNN, 2025). These kinds of approaches from Trump represent the sign of his foreign policy navigation as a diplomatic earthquake and it will be continued further in many dimensions.
Domestically, Trump’s rollback of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs highlighted a clear shift away from the social equity initiatives championed by his predecessor (the Guardian, 2025). Economic policies also reflected a strong nationalist agenda, with tariffs reinstated to protect American industries, despite the potential for trade tensions with key partners. On social issues, Trump’s stance was equally uncompromising. The administration’s push to curtail birthright citizenship ignited debates about constitutional rights and inclusivity, with critics warning of legal and humanitarian consequences. Perhaps most striking was the declaration of a national emergency along the southern border (The Whitehouse, 2025). This decision authorized the deployment of armed forces to curb immigration, a move that underscored the administration’s focus on border security and strict immigration control. Though many of these policies may appear domestic, their ripple effects extend far beyond U.S. borders. The re-imposition of tariffs, for instance, is likely to disrupt global trade dynamics and strain relations with key economic partners. The U.S. withdrawal from development-focused partnerships raises questions about whether the nation will now be viewed more as a transactional business partner than a cooperative development ally.
As these changes unfold, they mark a significant realignment of America’s priorities, reshaping its role on the world stage and redefining how it engages with issues of migration, global cooperation, and economic strategy. It is obvious that this shift in US policies have implications, both at home and abroad, that are bound to be far-reaching. President Donald Trump’s recent decision to impose 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico and 10% on goods from China, effective from February 1, 2025, has sparked significant geopolitical tensions. While officially framed as measures to combat illegal immigration and drug trafficking, particularly the influx of fentanyl, these tariffs carry broader implications that could reshape international trade dynamics and U.S. foreign relations. The move has already strained relationships with key allies. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced plans for “forceful but reasonable” countermeasures, warning of the potential economic fallout of a trade war. Mexico, too, signaled its intention to retaliate, raising fears of escalating tensions across North America (Foreign Policy, 2025).
China, often targeted by successive U.S. administrations due to its market dominance, particularly in technology and automotive sectors, is also in the spotlight. BYD, a major Chinese company and major competitor to Elon Musk’s Tesla, represents a key player in this dynamic. The tariffs on Chinese goods appear to be yet another attempt to limit China’s influence and market reach in the U.S.
While tensions with Mexico may not be surprising given long-standing issues related to illegal immigration and drug cartels, the case of Canada stands out. Historically a peaceful and cooperative neighbor, Canada has rarely posed challenges to U.S. interests. Trump’s tariffs on Canadian goods seem driven less by economic necessity and more by his populist strategy, aiming to appeal to American voters with a nationalistic narrative. Trump’s rhetoric suggests that Canada could naturally benefit more as the 51st state of the U.S., implying that aiding Canada as a separate entity is unnecessary.
From Canada’s perspective, the situation presents unique challenges. Key exports to the U.S., such as maple syrup, are costly and lack alternative markets, unlike China, which can pivot to Indonesia and India for trade. Despite limited media coverage, China’s strengthening trade ties with India and other regional partners are increasingly evident, further insulating it from the impact of U.S. tariffs (BBC, 2025).
The ripple effects of these tariffs extend beyond North America. The European Union and other global trading partners are now bracing for similar measures, fearing disruptions to supply chains and higher consumer prices. The interconnected nature of modern economies means that protectionist measures like these can have far-reaching consequences, potentially triggering inflation and destabilizing financial markets. Economists warn that American businesses and consumers will bear the brunt of these tariffs, as they will face higher costs for goods. For instance, while Tesla may initially see a sales boost, consumers determined to buy BYD cars will have to pay the extra expense. However, it is widely believed that Trump has a backup plan to mitigate the impact of these tariffs on the domestic economy (DW YouTube, 2025).
Ultimately, these tariffs are poised to redefine global trade dynamics and geopolitical relationships. They may prompt affected countries to seek new alliances, diminishing U.S. influence in international markets. As nations explore alternatives and strengthen ties elsewhere, Trump’s policies may inadvertently accelerate a shift in global economic power—one that challenges America’s traditional dominance. Perhaps, Trump is going to put the last nail in the coffin of Liberal international world order. Trump’s tariff policies are poised to reshape global trade and international relations, triggering a realignment of economic alliances. As affected nations seek alternative markets and strengthen ties with new partners, the United States risks diminishing its influence on the world stage. Rather than reinforcing America’s dominance, these policies may inadvertently accelerate a shift in global economic power, creating opportunities for emerging economies to rise and challenge the existing order.
At the core of Trump’s strategy is a nationalist approach that prioritizes economic protectionism and border security. However, this inward-looking stance comes at a cost where it alienates key allies, disrupts supply chains, and increases inflationary risks. The liberal international world order, once defined by U.S. leadership, is steadily giving way to a more fragmented, multipolar system. As unilateralism declines and economic fragmentation deepens, the growing influence of emerging economies signals the end of an era. In this context, Trump’s policies could be seen as the final nail in the coffin of the post-war liberal order.
His disengagement from international institutions reflects a broader unwillingness to lead on the global stage like UN, WTO etc. The U.S. withdrawal from key regimes such as the WHO, Paris agreement underscores this retreat. There is little room for diplomatic negotiations with bilateral partners, minimal commitment to transatlantic relations, and a transactional attitude toward NATO where allies are expected to fend for themselves. This departure from traditional U.S. foreign policy marks a shift from collective leadership to self-interest-driven diplomacy. Additionally, Trump’s withdrawal from climate agreements and health initiatives further signals a retreat from global cooperation. As these policies unfold, they are likely to deepen geopolitical realignments, reshaping international power structures in unforeseen ways. Under Trump, diplomacy is no longer about fostering alliances or upholding international norms, it is assumed that “business and economy will be the new language of U.S. diplomacy.” (BBC; Foreign Policy, 2025).
Trump’s NATO Strategy: Reshaping Alliances and Redefining Defense Burdens
In the context of NATO, President Donald Trump has maintained a critical stance insisting that member nations must fulfill their defense spending obligations. His message is clear: allies who fail to allocate at least 2% of their GDP to defense may no longer count on U.S. military protection, leaving themselves vulnerable to adversaries like Russia.This uncompromising position has stirred concern among European leaders, prompting many to reconsider their defense strategies. Some countries are contemplating increased military spending, while others explore greater autonomy in security matters to brace for potential shifts in U.S. policy. European nations are now navigating the possibility of reduced American involvement in regional defense and grappling with their future role within NATO. Trump’s approach to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine further underscores his intention to reduce direct U.S. engagement in European security issues. His proposed peace plan pressures both Ukraine and Russia to enter negotiations, with a carrot-and-stick approach: halting military aid to Ukraine if it refuses talks while increasing support should Russia decline. This strategy reflects Trump’s broader vision of encouraging Europe to take the lead in managing its own geopolitical challenges.
Despite his apparent skepticism of multilateral alliances, Trump is unlikely to fully dismantle NATO. Instead, his administration seems focused on reorienting it into a more balanced partnership, where European allies bear a greater share of the financial and operational burden. His long-standing opposition to what he perceives as “free-riding” by certain NATO members underscores this agenda.The corporate world, represented by figures like Elon Musk and other business leaders, continues to rally behind Trump, reinforcing his transactional approach to global affairs. Trump’s decisions often prioritize economic and strategic benefits, and NATO is no exception. Expansion of the alliance is likely to be halted, given Trump’s view that the organization’s growth was a contributing factor to the Ukraine-Russia conflict.However, while Trump may leverage defense spending as a bargaining tool, European countries’ inability to meet the 2% GDP requirement is unlikely to lead to their expulsion. Instead, verbal sparring and diplomatic maneuvering are expected as Trump seeks to secure a better deal for the U.S. (Foreign Policy, 2025)
Ultimately, Trump’s policies signal a radical rethinking of NATO, with a focus on redefining roles, responsibilities, and contributions. His efforts to push Europe toward self-reliance in defense matters could significantly reshape the alliance’s dynamics, ushering in a new era of transatlantic relations. In terms of security and defense funding, Israel and Egypt remain the top recipients of U.S. defense aid. Interestingly, President Donald Trump has refrained from applying pressure on these two nations regarding defense funds, in stark contrast to his approach with other countries. His rationale appears straightforward: only nations deemed insufficiently beneficial to American strategic or economic interests have faced scrutiny or cuts in funding.
This selective stance raises important questions about Trump’s broader foreign policy approach:
- Will Trump be able to put an end to wars?
- Is peace in the Middle East achievable under his leadership?
- Is he truly less bellicose than President Biden?
Answering these questions requires more than a simple assessment of each president’s four years in office. While Trump’s first term from 2016 to 2020 was arguably less war-prone compared to Biden’s 2020-2024 administration, this difference is not solely attributable to Trump’s leadership. Consider the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Although it occurred during Trump’s tenure, discussions and plans for the withdrawal were already underway before he took office. Nevertheless, Trump claimed full credit for it. Similarly, despite the relative lack of direct military interventions during his presidency, there was no significant decline in arms trade. In fact, the U.S. continued to maintain and expand its influence through defense deals and military partnerships worldwide.
Trump’s approach to global conflicts often prioritized business and strategic interests over traditional diplomatic engagement. His reluctance to invest in regions without clear economic benefit for the U.S. underscores this transactional mindset.Peace in the Middle East remains elusive, despite efforts by successive U.S. administrations. Trump’s presidency, marked by the Abraham Accords, did bring historic normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations. However, whether these efforts can be sustained or expanded is uncertain, especially given ongoing regional tensions and conflicts.
In the end, labeling Trump as less bellicose than Biden oversimplifies the complexity of their respective foreign policies. Both leaders have navigated the intricate web of global diplomacy and security with their own strategies. While Trump’s term may have appeared less war-like on the surface, underlying dynamics, including arms trade and strategic influence, continued unabated. Peace, as always, remains a fragile and challenging goal.
The U.S.-China Rivalry: Economic Decoupling and Geopolitical Tensions
The ongoing U.S.-China strategic competition has become one of the defining geopolitical trends of recent years, reshaping international trade and diplomacy. Both nations are making deliberate moves to reduce economic interdependence, often referred to as “decoupling.” This trend is driven by mutual distrust and a desire for greater control over critical supply chains.
In response to perceived unfair trade practices and national security threats, the United States has imposed a series of tariffs on Chinese imports since the Trump administration. These tariffs initially targeted goods like steel, aluminum, and technology components but have since expanded to cover a broader range of products, including consumer electronics and industrial machinery. Although the Biden administration has reviewed these measures, many tariffs remain in place as part of a broader strategy to counter China’s economic influence.
Beyond tariffs, the U.S. has also introduced export controls to restrict China’s access to advanced semiconductor technology. Washington’s efforts aim to curb Beijing’s advancements in artificial intelligence, 5G networks, and other strategic technologies that could bolster its military and global dominance.
China has retaliated by imposing its own tariffs on U.S. goods, including agricultural products such as soybeans, pork, and other key exports from American heartland states. Additionally, Beijing has sought to strengthen its domestic technology industry through initiatives like the “Made in China 2025” plan while fostering trade partnerships with countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
The economic tensions are exacerbated by geopolitical tensions. Taiwan, a democratic island that China claims as its territory, remains a significant source of conflict. Taiwan is the global leader in microchip and semiconductor technology, producing about 92% of the world’s chips. These chips are essential for smartphones, computers, military equipment, and aircraft, relied upon by major tech companies like Intel, Apple, and AMD. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), valued at $540 billion, dominates this sector. If China were to seize control of Taiwan, it would also gain control over chip production which is something the U.S. would never allow due to strategic and technological dependencies. The U.S. continues to support Taiwan with arms sales and diplomatic backing, much to Beijing’s dismay. Meanwhile, disputes in the South China Sea over maritime boundaries and resource claims have further strained relations. This economic and strategic rivalry shows no signs of easing, with both nations increasingly prioritizing self-reliance and security over global trade efficiency. The world watches closely as the two largest economies navigate a complex relationship that will undoubtedly shape the future of global geopolitics.
The U.S.-China strategic competition is reshaping global geopolitics, with economic and security concerns driving both nations toward increased self-reliance. Tariffs, export controls, and trade restrictions have intensified economic decoupling, while geopolitical flashpoints like Taiwan and the South China Sea add further strain to their relationship. The U.S. seeks to curb China’s technological and military advancements, while Beijing counters with domestic initiatives and expanded global partnerships. Taiwan’s dominance in semiconductor production makes it a critical battleground in this rivalry, with significant implications for global technology and security. As both superpowers prioritize national interests over global trade efficiency, the risk of further escalation remains high. This ongoing confrontation will not only redefine economic policies but also influence international alliances and global stability. The world now faces a new era of uncertainty, where technological supremacy, economic dominance, and military strategy are central to the unfolding U.S.-China power struggle (BBC; Reuters, 2025).
Realists often frame China as the primary strategic rival of the United States, surpassing even Russia in long-term geopolitical competition. Recent phone call between President Trump and President Putin, highlight the enduring significance of U.S.-Russia relations within this power dynamic. The conversation signals that despite China’s growing influence, the U.S. continues to engage with Russia in ways that reflect the shifting balance of global power. This interaction reinforces the realist perspective that great-power politics remain central to international affairs, with alliances, rivalries, and strategic dialogues shaping the evolving world order.
How will Trump’s policies impact South Asia?
Since taking office on January 20, Donald Trump has said little about South Asia, and his foreign policy priorities are expected to focus elsewhere as he begins his second term. Nonetheless, some of his initial actions, including certain domestic policies, may provide early insights into how he might approach relations with countries in the region.
South Asia, due to its strategic location, economic prospects, and security concerns holds significant geopolitical importance for the United States. The region, home to major economies like India and emerging markets such as Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, serves as a crucial link between the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Indo-Pacific. India, as a key U.S. strategic partner, plays a central role in counterbalancing China’s influence in Asia. The region also holds significance for counterterrorism efforts, particularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Moreover, South Asia’s trade routes, energy corridors, and growing markets are vital for U.S. economic and security interests. Strengthening ties with South Asian countries supports U.S. objectives for stability, security, and economic engagement in the broader region.
A second Trump presidency can reshape South Asia’s geopolitical and economic landscape, particularly through trade, tariffs, and immigration policies. His opposition to rerouting US-China trade via third countries and proposed tariffs may disrupt global supply chains, reducing US imports and exports. This shift could move up to 20 percent of manufacturing away from China by 2025, benefiting countries like Vietnam, which attracted $36.6 billion in FDI in 2023, compared to Bangladesh’s $3 billion. However, a “Trumpian” trade policy would challenge export-reliant economies like Bangladesh, where a five percent tariff hike on exports could result in an annual $487 million loss.
Stricter immigration policies, including efforts to end DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and the Public Charge Policy, may reduce remittances, a crucial income source for South Asia. Additionally, South Asian students may seek education in more welcoming countries if visa restrictions tighten. (Foreign Policy, 2025)
Navigating Challenges: The Future of U.S.-India Ties in a Trump Presidency
The U.S. maintains a strategic partnership with India, a relationship rooted in its broader strategy to counter China’s growing influence. This strategy, pivotal to U.S. geopolitical interests, is unlikely to change during Donald Trump’s potential second term. Although Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is often portrayed as having a personal rapport with Trump, such narratives tend to be exaggerated. In international relations, particularly when dealing with a superpower like the U.S., personal ties play a minimal role. Realpolitik and national interests invariably take precedence. From a pragmatic standpoint, the U.S. will prioritize its national interests over personal friendships. While the stable relationship between India and the U.S. is expected to continue, tensions may arise due to America’s evolving vision for its sphere of influence. India, which currently wields considerable clout in international affairs, may find it increasingly difficult to maintain such ease of access in the future. The U.S. is likely to adopt a more stringent stance on India’s expanding ambitions.
The alliance between populist leaders Trump and Modi is often depicted as robust, but this portrayal, frequently amplified by Indian media and BJP leaders, may not fully capture the complexities at play. One key challenge for India is its continued reliance on Russian defense equipment. During Trump’s first term, the U.S. exerted pressure on India to reduce arms purchases from Russia and increase acquisitions from American defense suppliers. However, India’s financial capacity and its ability to transition to Western defense systems remain uncertain.
The future trajectory of India-U.S. relations will also depend on India’s ability to serve U.S. business interests, as Trump’s “America First” agenda emphasizes economic deals. Given that South Asia has traditionally been a lower priority for U.S. foreign policy, the success of this partnership will hinge on India’s adeptness at balancing defense, economic, and strategic interests with Washington. While Modi and Trump’s populist agendas align in many respects, their alliance will face critical tests as these issues unfold. During his campaign last year, President Donald Trump criticized India as a “big abuser” of trade ties despite previously warm relations with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. During their recent phone call, Trump and Modi discussed plans for the Prime Minister’s upcoming White House visit, emphasizing strong bilateral ties and the importance of the Quad partnership. India will host Quad Leaders later this year, alongside the U.S., Japan, and Australia, to bolster cooperation in defense and energy amid China’s growing influence. Despite strategic collaboration, concerns persist in India over Trump’s tough stance on immigration and tariffs, including a potential “100 percent tariff” on the BRICS bloc that includes India as well. In their first conversation since Trump’s return to office, he raised concerns about the $32 billion U.S. trade deficit with India. When questioned about undocumented Indian immigrants in the U.S., Trump claimed that Modi committed to doing “what is right.” (Foreign Policy, 2025)
Meanwhile, a recent incident involving the deportation of Indian nationals by the U.S. administration has sparked a political storm in India. The returnees recounted harrowing experiences, stating that their hands and feet were bound for the entire 40-hour journey, and they were denied access to restrooms. This treatment has drawn fierce criticism from the opposition, who are expressing their dissent through unique forms of protest. Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar addressed the matter in parliament, stating that efforts are underway to communicate with the U.S. administration regarding the humiliating treatment of Indian immigrants. However, he also emphasized the need for India to take measures to curb illegal migration, acknowledging the shared responsibility in preventing such incidents (Jamuna TV, 2025).
The trajectory of U.S.-India relations under a potential second Trump administration is expected to follow a pragmatic course, shaped by geopolitical interests rather than personal rapport between leaders. While the strategic partnership between the two nations remains crucial for countering China’s influence, Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy may introduce new challenges. His emphasis on economic benefits for the U.S. suggests that trade deficits, defense deals, and immigration policies will be contentious issues. India’s reliance on Russian defense equipment remains a point of friction, as Trump previously pressured India to lean towards American arms suppliers. This demand, coupled with financial constraints, could strain defense cooperation. Additionally, Trump’s criticism of India’s trade practices, including potential tariffs on BRICS nations, underscores his focus on economic leverage. Despite these tensions, the Quad partnership remains a stabilizing factor, reinforcing security collaboration between India, the U.S., Japan, and Australia. However, Trump’s tough stance on immigration has sparked political controversy in India, particularly following the deportation of Indian nationals under harsh conditions. Ultimately, while the U.S.-India alliance will persist due to shared strategic interests, Trump’s America-first policies may test the resilience of this partnership, requiring India to navigate complex diplomatic and economic challenges.
Pakistan in the U.S. Foreign Policy: Declining Aid and Geopolitical Realignments
During his first term, President Donald Trump significantly reduced financial aid to Pakistan, citing dissatisfaction with its counterterrorism efforts and alleged support for militant groups. He accused Pakistan of providing “safe havens” to terrorists operating in the region, contributing to heightened tensions between Washington and Islamabad. His administration also expressed strong reservations about the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), viewing it as a geopolitical tool for China to expand its influence in South Asia, challenging American strategic interests. The U.S.-Pakistan relationship further strained following the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, with Washington criticizing Islamabad for allegedly facilitating the Taliban’s resurgence. Despite these tensions, some elements within Trump’s political circle advocated for the release of former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, highlighting the complex nature of U.S. engagement with Pakistan’s internal politics. While Pakistan once enjoyed strong ties with Republican administrations and was a significant post-9/11 recipient of U.S. military and economic aid, its role in U.S. foreign policy has diminished. The Trump administration’s aid freeze constrained Pakistan’s fiscal flexibility, increasing its dependence on financial support from China and Gulf states (The Geo Politics, 2025).
Several issues continue to shape U.S.-Pakistan relations, including Pakistan’s nuclear program, its strategic alignment with China, and allegations of state support for militant groups. Washington remains concerned about Pakistan’s expanding nuclear arsenal and its implications for South Asian security. Additionally, Pakistan’s growing cooperation with China has heightened American apprehensions, given Beijing’s increasing regional influence.
Historically, the U.S. exerted leverage over Pakistan through economic pressures and conditional aid. However, Pakistan’s reduced reliance on U.S. assistance has limited Washington’s influence. In response, the U.S. may pursue alternative diplomatic engagements through Gulf nations. Moving forward, shifting regional alliances and strategic interests will likely play a decisive role in shaping U.S.-Pakistan relations (Politico, 2018; Al Jazeera, 2024).
Bangladesh at the Crossroads: Navigating Geopolitical Shifts and Strategic Challenges
The geopolitical landscape in South Asia is increasingly marked by strategic competition between the United States and China. As the Bay of Bengal gains strategic significance, Bangladesh finds itself at the center of this rivalry. While China invests heavily in infrastructure, the United States emphasizes democratic values and security cooperation. Navigating this complex environment will require deft diplomacy from Bangladesh’s leadership.
The recent ouster of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has created a vacuum in Bangladesh’s external relations strategy. Political turbulence and factional struggles have further destabilized the nation. Bangladesh’s political and economic future now depends on conducting free and fair elections and maintaining constitutional governance. Balancing relations with major powers while safeguarding national sovereignty remains critical.
Bangladesh has historically prioritized relations with influential neighbors like China and India. However, the shifting geopolitical context demands a reassessment of these alliances. Allegations by Sheikh Hasina that her refusal to allow the U.S. access to St. Martin’s Island contributed to her removal lack concrete evidence but underscore the island’s strategic value near Myanmar’s coast.
Going forward, Bangladesh may recalibrate its approach by accommodating U.S. interests while reassessing ties with India, marking a departure from Hasina’s policies. Managing relations with China as a legitimate partner without becoming overly dependent will be crucial. Bangladesh’s ability to assert itself in the Indo-Pacific hinges on the establishment of a legitimate government capable of representing its people on the global stage.
The interim government tasked with restoring democracy aligns with U.S. policy objectives focused on democratic reform. Although Dr. Muhammad Yunus, a prominent social business pioneer, faces challenges due to his criticism of Trump and alignment with Democrats; this shift may not significantly alter Bangladesh’s regime trajectory. It would be comparatively easier for Dr. Yunus to deal with Democrats, but the level of cooperation might now be slightly reduced. However, Bangladesh might not regain a few facilities like the GSP, tariffs, and LDC benefits
Economic dynamics remain critical. While Trump’s transactional diplomacy may diminish soft power initiatives, Bangladesh could find export opportunities amid U.S.-China trade tensions, particularly in the ready-made garments (RMG) sector. Higher tariffs on Chinese goods may benefit Bangladeshi exports, although broader protectionist measures might undermine these gains. Declining American foreign investment, from $354 million in 2022 to $314.9 million in 2023, highlights the need to foster an investment-friendly climate. The RMG sector, accounting for 84.7% of merchandise exports, must diversify into value-added products and branding strategies. Expanding ICT, pharmaceuticals, and agro-processing sectors will reduce economic risks.
The recent decision by the United States to freeze aid has sparked significant concerns across South Asia. For countries like Bangladesh, a nation already grappling with economic fragility, this aid freeze poses a severe threat, potentially exacerbating its political and socio-economic challenges. The implications of this decision are far-reaching, particularly in areas like refugee management, public health, sanitation, and access to clean water. Bangladesh has long depended on foreign aid to tackle pressing challenges, including public health crises. One of the key institutions at the forefront of these efforts is the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (ICDDR,B), which has played a crucial role in medical research and disease prevention. However, due to funding constraints, ICDDR,B has recently laid off over 1,200 employees, many of whom are highly skilled researchers and scientists. The unfortunate reality is that Bangladesh currently lacks the capacity to absorb most of these experts into alternative roles, leading to a potential brain drain and a significant setback for the country’s research and healthcare sectors. Moreover, the freeze on aid may have a disproportionately negative impact on the empowerment of women and human rights initiatives and the country’s overall development.
While Bangladesh faces these challenges, the United Nations stands as one of the largest contributors in regions affected by conflict and calamities, offering humanitarian assistance and promoting peace. Though often criticized for its shortcomings, the UN remains the most significant platform for delivering aid and support in some of the world’s most volatile and crisis-stricken areas. Its presence in Bangladesh has been instrumental in addressing key development issues and sustaining peace, especially in the context of refugees and displaced populations (South China Morning Post, 2025)
Security cooperation between the U.S. and Bangladesh has thrived over five decades, encompassing maritime security, border protection, and counterterrorism. Since 2014, Bangladesh has received $78.45 million in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and $14.5 million for International Military Education and Training (IMET). Offers to modernize Bangladesh’s military, including Apache helicopters, were abandoned due to stringent policy conditions. A renewed Trump presidency may revive defense talks, though declining foreign reserves of Bangladesh may limit high-cost purchases.
Indian media has recently intensified a misinformation campaign targeting Bangladesh’s interim government following Hasina’s fall on August 5, exaggerating incidents of violence while ignoring stories of communal solidarity. This narrative deflects attention from rising communal tensions in India under Prime Minister Modi’s government. Incidents like ISKCON leader Chinmoy Krishna Das’ arrest, framed as religious persecution despite allegations of violence, illustrate this agenda. The fallout worsened bilateral ties, with BJP politicians provoking attacks on Bangladesh’s Assistant High Commission in Agartala. During Hasina’s tenure, her alignment with India’s strategic interests, including curbing anti-India militancy and granting transit access, earned unwavering Indian support despite democratic shortcomings. The abrupt regime change disrupted India’s strategic foothold, prompting intensified attacks from Indian media aligned with political interests.
Indian media and political leaders, particularly from the ruling BJP, have intensified efforts to portray the political revolution in Bangladesh as an extremist right-wing uprising. These narratives often falsely depict Bangladesh as a terrorist haven, a narrative designed to delegitimize the interim government and safeguard India’s strategic interests in the region. Fact-checks have consistently debunked most of these claims as baseless propaganda. Despite this, sensationalized reports continue to circulate, aiming to create fear and sow discord among international stakeholders. This misinformation campaign appears motivated by India’s desire to maintain its strategic influence in Bangladesh, which was bolstered under Hasina’s administration due to her concessions on issues like transit routes and anti-India militancy. Unlike previous administrations, Trump showed minimal interest in global “War on Terror” narratives, focusing instead on transactional diplomacy and economic interests. His approach largely deprioritized ideological conflicts in favor of fostering business opportunities and reducing trade imbalances rather, prioritized regional stability. Stability and trade are closely interconnected, as political and economic stability create a conducive environment for business growth and international trade. Conversely, political instability, social unrest, and security threats can disrupt supply chains, deter foreign investments, and weaken economic performance. Given this stance, it is unlikely that Trump would be swayed by India’s narrative framing Bangladesh as a terrorist state. Instead, Trump’s administration would likely emphasize economic engagement, valuing Bangladesh’s stability as essential for fostering trade and investment opportunities (Prothom Alo, 2024; The Daily Star, 2024).
Conclusion :
India’s ongoing misinformation campaign regarding Bangladesh’s political landscape appears to serve its strategic interests rather than reflect objective realities. By framing the revolution as an extremist uprising, India seeks to justify its political maneuvering and maintain influence in Bangladesh, especially after years of benefiting from Sheikh Hasina’s administration. However, fact-checks and independent analyses have repeatedly debunked these claims, exposing them as part of a broader disinformation strategy.
Given Trump’s historical approach to foreign policy, one rooted in transactional diplomacy and economic pragmatism, it is unlikely that his administration would be influenced by India’s exaggerated rhetoric. Unlike past U.S. leadership that engaged in ideological battles under the banner of the “War on Terror,” Trump’s policies prioritized economic stability, trade opportunities, and regional peace. His administration would likely recognize that political unrest in Bangladesh could disrupt trade flows, deter foreign investment, and weaken economic performance, making stability the preferred outcome.
As global power dynamics shift, Bangladesh’s political future will be determined by its own people rather than external misinformation campaigns. The focus should remain on ensuring stability, fostering economic growth, and preventing geopolitical narratives from undermining Bangladesh’s sovereignty and progress.
References:
Al Jazeera. (2024, June 1). Bid for dominance over Asia-Pacific tests US-China attempt at detente. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/1/bid-for-dominance-over-asia-pacific-tests-us-china-attempt-at-detente
Al Jazeera. (2025, January 21). First raft of lawsuits target US birthright citizenship, other Trump orders. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/21/first-raft-of-lawsuits-target-us-birthright-citizenship-other-trump-orders
Al Jazeera. (2025, January 9). Why are Donald Trump’s allies cheering for Pakistan’s Imran Khan. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/9/why-are-donald-trumps-allies-cheering-for-pakistans-imran-khan
AP News. (n.d.). Trump backlash NATO funding Russia Ukraine. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/trump-backlash-nato-funding-russia-ukraine-796f245e06d1a0f314e3b4bfdb793cc0
British Broadcasting Corporation. (n.d.). Climate change effects and adaptation strategies. BBC. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg0m79gm10o
British Broadcasting Corporation. (n.d.). Global diplomatic crises in 2025. BBC. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3z22938jo
British Broadcasting Corporation. (n.d.). The evolving nature of regional alliances. BBC. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3gr90jnxjvo
British Broadcasting Corporation. (n.d.). What the Ukraine conflict tells us about global power shifts. BBC. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cev90d7wkk0o
British Broadcasting Corporation. (n.d.). Why inflation matters to everyone. BBC. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93qnk92174o
CNN. (2025, January 21). Trump executive action: World Health Organization withdrawal. Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/21/politics/trump-executive-action-world-health-organization-withdrawal/index.html
Crisis Group. (n.d.). Bangladesh dilemmas in democratic transition. Retrieved from https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/bangladesh/bangladesh-dilemmas-democratic-transition
Deccan Chronicle. (n.d.). Trump and Modi discuss trade, immigration during PM’s US visit in February. Retrieved from https://www.deccanchronicle.com/news/current-affairs/trump-modi-discuss-trade-immigration-pms-us-visit-in-february-1857145
Firstpost. (n.d.). Bangladesh crisis: How America-China rivalry may push Dhaka into a corner. Retrieved from https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/bangladesh-crisis-how-america-china-rivalry-may-push-dhaka-in-a-corner-13804916.html
Foreign Policy. (2025, February 7). Trump and Modi in India-Washington visit: Trade and immigration. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/07/trump-modi-india-washington-visit-trade-immigration/
Foreign Policy. (2025, January 17). NATO, Trump deal, spending defense Russia Europe allies. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/01/17/nato-trump-deal-spending-defense-russia-europe-allies
Foreign Policy. (2025, January 22). Trump’s South Asia policy: Tariffs and immigration. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/01/22/trump-south-asia-policy-tariffs-immigration
IndoPac NZ. (n.d.). Dhaka-Beijing relations in post-revolution Bangladesh: Continuity, shifts, and uncertainty. Retrieved from https://www.indopac.nz/post/dhaka-beijing-relations-in-post-revolution-bangladesh-continuity-shifts-uncertainty
International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). (2024, August). Bangladesh: Domestic turmoil and regional insecurity. Retrieved from https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2024/08/bangladesh-domestic-turmoil-and-regional-insecurity/
Livemint. (n.d.). US elections 2024: 5 key points from Donald Trump’s election manifesto that may impact India. Retrieved from https://www.livemint.com/market/stock-market-news/us-elections-2024-5-key-points-from-donald-trump-s-election-manifesto-that-may-impact-india-11731306819248.html
Politico. (2018, January 4). Trump administration and Pakistan aid. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/04/trump-administration-pakistan-aid-325401
Prothom Alo. (n.d.). Op-eds and international affairs. Retrieved from https://en.prothomalo.com
Reuters. (2023, May 24). US-China tensions intensify over tech and Taiwan flashpoints. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/world/us-china-tensions-intensify-over-tech-taiwan-flashpoints-2023-05-24/
TBS News. (n.d.). Bangladesh-China relations in the post-Hasina era: Delicate dance with the dragon. Retrieved from https://www.tbsnews.net/features/panorama/bangladesh-china-relations-post-hasina-era-delicate-dance-dragon-1037096
The Daily Star. (n.d.). Geopolitical insights and defense relations. Retrieved from https://www.thedailystar.net
The Guardian. (2025, January 26). Trump executive orders on DEI. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/26/trump-executive-orders-dei
The Hindu. (n.d.). Bangladesh urges China to reduce interest rate on loan. Retrieved from https://www.thehindu.com
The SAIS Review. (n.d.). Geopolitics and revolution in Bangladesh. Retrieved from https://saisreview.sais.jhu.edu/geopolitics-and-revolution-the-superpower-nexus-behind-hasinas-rule-and-the-future-of-bangladeshs-foreign-policy/
US-China Perception Monitor. (2021, September 9). CPEC: American and Pakistani perceptions. Retrieved from https://uscnpm.org/2021/09/09/cpec-american-and-pakistani-perceptions/
White House. (2025, January 29). Declaring a national emergency at the southern border of the United States. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/declaring-a-national-emergency-at-the-southern-border-of-the-united-states/
YouTube. (n.d.). Economic challenges in the modern world [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I1L1fXaYDs
YouTube. (n.d.). U.S.-India diplomatic relations: Current trends and future prospects [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kubUKKlS5Qg