The U.S. State Department has refrained from endorsing reports that allege a sharp rise in Islamic extremism under the interim government of Bangladesh led by Muhammad Yunus.
In response to a pointed question citing The New York Times’ claims of extremist symbolism in anti-government protests—including images of Osama bin Laden and Nazi insignia—spokesperson Tammy Bruce in Tuesday’s briefing neither confirmed nor condemned the reports.
She avoided engaging with the substance of the allegations, instead stating, “Bangladesh is a country with certain issues. They are also a country that we’ve talked about often, certainly with the questions from the crew here. So, for a specific dynamic, I’m going to have us take that away.”
The spokesperson stressed that protests and related developments were “a matter for the Bangladesh authorities to handle, and of course talking with them matters a great deal as well.”
Her comments suggested a cautious diplomatic stance, avoiding direct confrontation with Dhaka’s interim government at a time of growing international concern over political and religious instability in the country.
Bruce reiterated Washington’s broader democratic values, noting, “Elections matter… democracy matters, and actions by people matter to confront issues that might in fact destroy their lives.”
Her remarks underscore a delicate balancing act: highlighting the importance of democratic processes while avoiding overt criticism of a volatile interim administration with whom U.S. cooperation remain strategically important.
As the journalist in the briefing placed a lengthy question and continued, Bruce once said “yes”, once “all right” and as the question still went on, she intercepted to start her answer by saying “Right. We have—sir, sir, we–.”
In reply, in a surprising moment during Tuesday’s State Department briefing, spokesperson Tammy Bruce unpromptedly brought up the recent arrest warrant issued by Bangladeshi court for British MP Tulip Siddiq—niece of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.
Her mention of the case, despite no related question being posed, sparked speculation about Washington’s growing awareness of judicial actions tied to Bangladesh’s political shifts.