Indonesia Signed the US Trade Deal a Day Before SCOTUS Voids Trump's Tariffs. Government Response: 'Continue to Process.'

So. Last week, the United States Supreme Court — yes, that Supreme Court, the one that used to be about cases and is now about vibes — torpedoed the tariffs that President Donald Trump had been using as his favorite economic weapon. ^[1] It did so, with the timing of a slapstick pratfall, exactly one day after Indonesia signed a trade deal with the United States. ^[2]

Let that land for a second. The day after the deal. The day. After.

The deal itself, in case you missed the headline, is mostly about letting American products into Indonesia more easily — meaning us, the Indonesian side, are mandated to eliminate import taxes on those products. ^[3] “Eliminate” is the word. Not “reduce,” not “review,” not “form a working group to discuss the possibility of considering.” Eliminate. Because apparently our negotiating position was whatever the other side typed into the Google Doc first.

But it doesn’t stop at import taxes. The deal also bundles in a long list of mandates requiring changes to Indonesian laws and regulations. ^[4] Some of them — revisions to labor laws, regulatory practices, that sort of thing — could, in theory, be beneficial. ^[5] I’m told this is the part we’re meant to feel good about.

And then there are the other parts. The part where, in foreign policy terms, we have effectively given American companies an all-access pass to our minerals. ^[6] You know — the shiny rocks. The ones under the ground. The ones we keep being told are the future of the economy. Handed over with a bow.

For a country whose foreign policy doctrine has historically been bebas dan aktif — free and active, the principle of not taking sides between great powers — this is, let’s say, an interesting read. ^[7] I did mathematics. We may as well have taken the bebas dan aktif doctrine, set it on fire, and handed the shiny rocks to the Americans on a silver platter, all while we buff their shoes and whistle.

Now. The deal was signed. And then, one day later, the American Supreme Court declared Trump’s tariffs illegal. ^[8] Which would, in a sane timeline, be the part where everyone involved takes a deep breath, pours a coffee, and reopens negotiations.

We are not in a sane timeline.

Trump, in response, imposed a fresh 10% tariff on the entire world using a different legal authority — one that, in theory, is only enforceable for 150 days. ^[9] For it to last longer, the United States Congress would have to approve an extension. ^[10] Given how popular tariffs are in the United States right now, I am not betting on this horse.

So the trade deal Indonesia just signed, the one with all those mandates, is now being implemented in a world where the central premise — the tariff regime that arguably justified the urgency — is no longer the law of the land in the United States. Meanwhile, the Indonesian government has stated that it will continue to process the agreement. ^[14] “Continue to process.” I have read that sentence several times. It does not say ratify. It does not say implement. It does not say pause. It says “continue to process,” which is a phrase I associate with customer service chatbots telling me my refund is being processed, again, for the fourth month in a row.

The European Union (EU), for its part, has already frozen ratification of its own trade deal with the United States following the Supreme Court ruling. ^[11] The EU being cautious and pausing for reflection. Cute. I remember when we used to do that.

Analysts from Celios, an Indonesian economic think tank, have made the same argument: that Indonesia no longer has to ratify the deal at all. ^[12]

Other analysts, though, disagree. International law professor Marco Market has argued that Indonesia would have to ratify the deal anyway — because the alternative is “public and international embarrassment and the disrepute of our nation on trade agreements.” ^[13] Which is a sentence. Which is presumably a sentence a professor said out loud. And which translates, roughly, to: if we don’t sign, we’ll be embarrassed. So we have to sign.

Here is the actual argument. The argument against having a choice is that not choosing is embarrassing. The argument for ratifying a deal whose central justification evaporated in 24 hours is that pulling out would make us look bad. The argument for staying in a sub-receiver position is that leaving would be impolite.

Meanwhile, Trump has been on social media threatening any countries that back out of their deals. ^[15] So we have a Supreme Court ruling saying one thing, a president doing another, an Indonesian government committing to a third, and a public being told to sit quietly while the adults figure it out.

This is, on paper, the deal we signed. The deal that requires changes to our laws, our regulatory practices, and the doctrine of bebas dan aktif itself. We signed it, the other side’s court invalidated the underlying tariff regime the next day, the other side’s president pivoted to a new tariff regime, and our government is “continuing to process” the agreement.

To be fair — and I want to do this with a straight face — there is nothing more patriotic than giving everything to a foreign country at the first sign of trouble. That is the position, dressed up in the language of national interest.

Who’s the antecasing now.