Aristyo Darmawan – On Thursday, 19 February 2026, during Prabowo's visit to the United States, Indonesia signed a tariff deal with the US as part of the Implementation of the Agreement toward a New Golden Age US-Indonesia Alliance. Essentially, the agreement reduced Indonesia's tariff from 32% to 19%.
However, the very next day, Friday 20 February, the US Supreme Court dropped a bombshell, ruling that Trump Executive Order 14257, which imposed a 32% tariff on Indonesia, was illegal under the US Constitution. This has called the rationale for the newly-signed tariff deal into question.
In light of this ruling, I argue that Indonesia should not ratify the treaty.
Illegal and unfair tariff deals
Many provisions of the treaty specifically refer to US Executive Order 14257 as the basis of the US 32% tariff – and some provisions even allow the US to revert to a 32% tariff if Indonesia fails to meet its obligations.
Now that the US Supreme Court ruled the Executive Order is illegal, those articles are no longer relevant. Indonesia should not agree to something that has been ruled illegal by the highest court in the US.
More importantly, after the court's ruling, Trump immediately signed a new order that set tariffs globally at 15% under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. With this new order, all countries automatically get 15% tariffs instead of the wide range of tariffs that initially applied under Executive Order 14257. This should, of course, apply to Indonesia too.
But if Indonesia upholds the recently signed treaty, which imposed 19% tariffs, it means it will voluntarily put itself in a much more unfavourable position than every other country. They all automatically get a 15% tariff without accepting any obligations to the US.
Under the World Trade Organisation's rules, there are important Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) principles that require countries to treat all trading partners equally. Under these principles, a country should grant concessions, privileges, or lower tariffs equally to all other WTO members to prevent discrimination.
The new Indonesia-US treaty clearly violates those principles, given that Indonesia now faces higher tariffs than other countries.
An unequal agreement
Even without the bombshell Supreme Court decision, there are major problems with the Indonesia-US tariffs agreement.
It seems to place two supposedly equal parties in an unequal position. At least more than 200 obligations are imposed solely on Indonesia, while less than ten apply to the US. It uses the phrase 'Indonesia shall' way more often than 'the United States shall' or even 'both parties shall'.
Article 1.2, for instance, states that 'Indonesia shall not impose or maintain quantitative restrictions...' and Article 2.28 states that 'Indonesia shall allow foreign investment without ownership restrictions for US investors in the mining sectors...'
These examples show an unequal position between Indonesia and the US – definitely not the usual kind of 'reciprocal' agreement between the two parties in a treaty.Can Indonesia just leave the treaty in limbo?
The important question now is whether Indonesia can simply ignore the treaty it has just signed.
The answer is clear: we can, and we have done it before.
Under international law, there is no legal obligation on a country that has signed a treaty to ratify it. The decision whether to ratify is left to that country's domestic political process. The only obligation that arises from a non-ratified agreement is to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the agreement.
Under Article 84 (2) of the Indonesian Trade law No 7 Year 2014, a treaty relating to trade agreement with other countries that has already been signed should be submitted to the House of Representatives (the DPR) for approval before it can be implemented. However, the DPR retains the discretion not to ratify the treaty, and the government has no constitutional authority to compel it to do so.
One example of this was the Perth Treaty with Australia in 1997. This treaty, which established an exclusive economic zone and a seabed boundary between Indonesia and Australia, was never ratified by Indonesia. One of the main reasons was the need to modify the treaty, as it covers the Timor Sea, which, after Timor Leste's independence, was no longer within Indonesia's jurisdiction.
Another example is from 2007, when the DPR refused to ratify the Indonesia-Singapore Defence Cooperation Agreement. Indonesian politicians justified this by reference to national security reasons, as the treaty gave Singapore the right to conduct military exercises in Indonesian archipelagic waters. The DPR finally ratified this treaty in 2023.
If a decision has been made not to ratify the Indonesia-US treaty, the government should formally notify the US of Indonesia's intention not to become a party. This is necessary to release Indonesia from its obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of the agreement, as provided for under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
This should be done and done soon. Indonesia is better off not ratifying this unequal treaty.