The House of Representatives (DPR RI) must reject the ratification of the Indonesia–US ART. Moreover, this is not a win-win agreement as the government described.
KABARBURSA.COM – The Indonesia–United States Reciprocal Trade Agreement, or Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART), signed on February 19, 2026, has drawn sharp criticism from several civil society groups. The government and the DPR RI have been urged not to proceed with the ratification process, as the deal is considered detrimental to national interests and contrary to international law.
The ART agreement includes Indonesia’s commitment to eliminate 99 percent of tariffs on US-origin goods. In return, the US grants reciprocal tariffs of up to 19 percent on Indonesian goods. In addition, there is a large-scale purchase commitment worth US$33 billion, including US energy imports valued at US$15 billion—such as crude oil, gasoline, LPG, and coal—as well as the purchase of 50 Boeing aircraft worth US$13.5 billion.
Rachmi Hertanti, a researcher at the Transnational Institute (TNI), said the agreement has lost its relevance after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the reciprocal tariff policy contravened US law. She argued that there is no longer a strong basis for Indonesia to proceed with ratification.
“It is very clear that there is no longer any legitimate reason for the Indonesian Government to continue the ratification process. The ART agreement is no longer relevant. The DPR RI must reject the ratification of the Indonesia–US ART. This is not a win-win agreement as explained by the Government, but rather a trade-off of Indonesia’s natural resource sovereignty for illegal reciprocal tariffs—not only based on the US Supreme Court ruling, but also illegal under GATT rules at the WTO,” Rachmi said in a written statement on Monday, February 23, 2026.
According to her, although President Donald Trump is said to still implement global tariffs of 10 to 15 percent through Section 122, the policy is temporary and still requires approval from the United States Congress for extension. In this context, such global tariffs are considered lower than the 19 percent tariff secured by Indonesia through the ART in exchange for substantial concessions.
Criticism also came from the National Coordinator of Publish What You Pay Indonesia, Aryanto Nugroho. He argued that the ART agreement does not merely regulate tariffs but contains broad commitments affecting the natural resources and strategic investment sectors.
“The extension of mining permits and oil and gas concessions reinforces a pattern of long-term concession sell-offs,” he said. In his view, this effectively grants exploitation rights to US corporations until mineral reserves are fully depleted under a life-of-mine scheme. Once reserves are exhausted, the public will inherit permanent environmental damage without control over the strategic assets that have been drained. “It is highly detrimental to Indonesia in the long term if natural resource sovereignty is sacrificed for ‘tariff reductions’ that are ‘non-reciprocal,’” Aryanto stressed.
The agreement document mentions the extension of Freeport McMoRan’s mining permits until 2061 and ExxonMobil’s contracts until 2055. In addition, there are commitments to purchase fuel and bioethanol from the US, including the potential for zero-percent tariffs on ethanol imports if domestic production is deemed insufficient.
Aryanto argued that such a policy could undermine incentives to develop the local ethanol industry based on sugarcane or cassava, which should create jobs and add domestic value. Without transparency mechanisms such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), the agreement is considered at risk of widening the trade deficit and hindering the renewable energy transition.
Another issue drawing attention is cooperation on critical minerals. The ART mentions collaboration on silica sand processing investment for semiconductor raw materials, including financing support from the US EXIM Bank and the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC). However, such support is viewed as requiring significant sovereignty concessions.
Several contested provisions include the removal of local content requirements and domestic specifications, the elimination of restrictions on critical mineral exports, the removal of divestment obligations in the mining sector, and the right to transfer profits without delay.
“The elimination of local content requirements and the prohibition of export restrictions on critical minerals in this agreement constitute a direct attack on the national downstreaming agenda. The Government appears to be forced to yield to US protectionist policies, while our own policy space to build domestic value-added industries is severely curtailed,” he emphasized.
Rachmi also highlighted national security provisions in the agreement, which she said could bind Indonesia’s trade and diplomatic policies to US strategic interests.
These security compliance provisions could create risks of retaliation by third parties and asymmetric compliance obligations that place Indonesia in a subordinate position relative to the US. “This also locks Indonesia into dependence on a single country, limiting our ability to diversify partnerships in order to protect our national development interests,” Rachmi explained.
Several parties have urged the government to transparently disclose the 11 business agreements signed as part of the ART package. Public scrutiny is considered essential to ensure that this trade agreement does not become an instrument for bartering state-controlled natural resource sovereignty.
Amid legal developments in the US and various strategic domestic consequences, pressure on the DPR RI to reject the ratification of the Indonesia–US ART is expected to intensify in the near future.
Source: Kabar Bursa