THE recent joint press briefing between US president Donald Trump and Indian prime minister Narendra Modi has sparked significant discussion regarding the role of the deep state in shaping geopolitical events. While the discussion revolved primarily around trade, defence and diplomatic engagements, a key point of contention was whether the US deep state had played a role in the political upheaval in Bangladesh. Trump鈥檚 outright dismissal of such claims, coupled with his deference to Modi on the matter, opens up deeper questions about power structures, influence and strategic interests in the region.
The term 鈥榙eep state鈥� refers to a network of bureaucratic, intelligence and military actors that allegedly operate beyond the control of elected officials, influencing domestic and international affairs. Critics argue that these actors manipulate policy decisions to serve entrenched institutional interests rather than democratic mandates. In the case of Bangladesh, a quarter suspects that the US deep state had actively supported or orchestrated the ouster of the Awami League administration, a long-standing political force in the country.
When asked whether the previous Democratic administration under former president Joe Biden orchestrated a regime change in Bangladesh and installed Muhammad Yunus as chief adviser, president Trump firmly denied any deep state involvement. His categorical dismissal is particularly noteworthy, given his history of criticising the deep state鈥檚 influence in American politics. This rejection could indicate either a deliberate effort to distance himself from covert operations or a strategic move to maintain diplomatic balance.
Trump鈥檚 reluctance to engage deeply in Bangladesh鈥檚 political affairs appears to stem from several factors. First, Bangladesh does not pose a direct national security threat to the US, making it a lower priority for the Trump administration. Unlike China, Russia or Iran, where US foreign policy is actively engaged in countering influence and competition, Bangladesh remains a peripheral concern.
Moreover, Trump鈥檚 broader foreign policy stance has been characterised by a transactional approach, favouring economic deals and strategic alliances over interventions in domestic politics. Given his focus on reducing US involvement in foreign conflicts and minimising foreign aid commitments, Bangladesh may not align with his administration鈥檚 core interests.听
However, both India and the United States share a common strategic interest when it comes to Bangladesh 鈥� limiting China鈥檚 growing influence in the region. While their approaches may differ, the overarching goal remains the same: to prevent Bangladesh from becoming too economically or politically dependent on Beijing. For India, this is a matter of regional security and strategic dominance, as maintaining close ties with Bangladesh helps counter China鈥檚 expanding footprint in South Asia. For the US, containing China鈥檚 influence aligns with its broader Indo-Pacific strategy, which seeks to challenge Beijing鈥檚 rising power in key geopolitical regions.
By working towards this shared objective, both Washington and New Delhi are likely to collaborate on diplomatic, economic and security initiatives that discourage Bangladesh from deepening its ties with China. This could involve increased trade agreements, infrastructure investments or security partnerships to offer Bangladesh viable alternatives to Chinese-backed projects. While the US may take a more indirect approach, preferring to influence Bangladesh through its broader regional alliances, India will likely play a more active role, given its geographic proximity and historical ties. Ultimately, the common goal of countering China鈥檚 influence serves as a unifying factor in the US-India approach towards Bangladesh, despite any differences in their foreign policy strategies.
Additionally, Trump鈥檚 response 鈥� 鈥業 have been reading about it. But I will leave Bangladesh to the prime minister鈥� 鈥� reflects a deliberate lack of direct US engagement in Bangladesh鈥檚 political affairs. By acknowledging that he has 鈥榖een reading about it,鈥� Trump signals some awareness of the situation but chooses not to elaborate or take a definitive stance. Instead, he shifts the focus to Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, effectively deferring responsibility for handling Bangladesh-related matters to India. This suggests that Trump does not view Bangladesh as a priority in US foreign policy and is content with India taking the lead in shaping regional dynamics. His response also avoids controversy, as taking a strong position on Bangladesh鈥檚 internal politics could complicate US relations with both India and Bangladesh.
This stance aligns with Trump鈥檚 broader 鈥楢merica First鈥� foreign policy, which emphasised reducing US intervention in international affairs unless it directly benefitted American interests. Rather than involving the US in South Asia鈥檚 complex political landscape, Trump鈥檚 statement suggests that he sees India as the primary regional power responsible for managing Bangladesh-related issues. By implying that India has a historical and strategic stake in Bangladesh, Trump reinforces a regional approach to geopolitics, where local powers handle their neighbouring states with minimal US interference. This marks a contrast from previous US administrations, which engaged more actively in South Asian affairs, including Bangladesh鈥檚 democracy, human rights and economic development.
However, this does not imply that he has relinquished control over Bangladesh鈥檚 governance or entrusted Modi with the management of and intervention in its internal affairs and foreign policy. The leadership and decision-making authority over the country remain firmly in the hands of its own government, which continues to chart its course based on national interests, priorities and the will of its people. While diplomatic relations and collaborations with India may exist, they do not equate to surrendering sovereignty or allowing external influence to dictate Bangladesh鈥檚 political landscape in the present interim government led by Dr Muhammad Yunus.
While Trump publicly distanced the US from any deep-state involvement in Bangladesh, Modi鈥檚 stance was equally telling. He chose not to comment extensively on Bangladesh during the press briefing, reflecting the delicacy of the situation. As India has historically maintained strong ties with the Awami League, Modi faces mounting pressure regarding India鈥檚 role in the recent political developments.
Experts suggest that Modi鈥檚 silence could be a calculated move to avoid escalating tensions. International relations analysts commented that Modi is under immense pressure, particularly in balancing trade relations with the US and addressing domestic economic concerns. With defence and trade taking precedence in US-India relations, Bangladesh鈥檚 political situation may not have been Modi鈥檚 immediate priority in his discussions with Trump.
The broader geopolitical landscape also plays a crucial role in shaping US-India relations. Just before Modi鈥檚 visit, Trump criticised India鈥檚 high tariffs, highlighting ongoing trade tensions, and took steps to extradite illegal Indian immigrants. However, despite these economic frictions and immigration issues, both leaders acknowledge the strategic significance of their alliance, particularly in countering China鈥檚 growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region.
From this perspective, Bangladesh becomes a secondary concern within the larger geopolitical chessboard. India views Bangladesh as a key security partner, especially in countering regional instability. However, Trump鈥檚 administration is less inclined to view Bangladesh through an Indian lens, as observed by many international strategic analysts. Instead, the US is likely to prioritise economic engagement over direct political involvement.
The joint press briefing and its aftermath indicate a shifting diplomatic landscape for Bangladesh. With Trump signalling a hands-off approach, Bangladesh鈥檚 interim government under Yunus faces an urgent need to solidify domestic political stability without relying on US intervention.
Jon F Danilowicz, a former US diplomat, highlighted that the release of the UN OHCHR report on Bangladesh鈥檚 political crisis, coupled with Trump鈥檚 noncommittal stance, represents a positive development for the interim government. It diminishes the credibility of claims that the regime change was orchestrated by external forces, particularly the US deep state.
However, Bangladesh still faces significant challenges. The issue of whether to ban the Awami League remains a contentious one, with potential long-term consequences for political stability. Furthermore, India鈥檚 continued support for certain political factions and the Awami League could create further complications, especially if Bangladesh seeks to diversify its alliances beyond its traditional partnerships.
The Trump-Modi press briefing underscores the complexities of international politics, where strategic calculations often overshadow ideological narratives. While the deep state remains a contentious topic in political discourse, Trump鈥檚 disavowal of its role in Bangladesh reflects a broader shift in US foreign policy 鈥� one that prioritises economic and strategic interests over covert interventions.
For India, the situation remains delicate, as it navigates pressure from both domestic and international stakeholders. Meanwhile, Bangladesh鈥檚 political trajectory will largely depend on internal developments, with limited or no external interference from the US.
Ultimately, the deep state鈥檚 alleged role in shaping global politics remains an open debate, but in the case of Bangladesh, Trump鈥檚 administration appears to favour strategic disengagement, leaving regional actors to determine their own course.
听
Dr Md Motiar Rahman is a retired deputy inspector general of police.
