This opinion piece was published on The Conversation Indonesia on Feb 25, 2026

Last Thursday, February 19, 2026, President Prabowo Subianto and United States (US) President Donald Trump signed a Reciprocal Trade Agreement between the two countries. This agreement is not only about commodity trade but also covers digital technology issues.

Although there were rumours that the policy would be cancelled after being blocked by the US Supreme Court, the Indonesian delegation stated that the agreement is still proceeding, awaiting a decision from the US government.

This article will not consider the US Supreme Court decision but focuses on the agreement between Indonesia and the US, which reviews its potential impact on the Copyright Law revision process regarding the financial responsibility of digital platforms that monetise journalistic content.

Is it true that the trade agreement prohibits Indonesia from imposing a digital tax or anything similar on US companies?

There is a legal opening that may be utilised

In my opinion, the trade agreement only prohibits the imposition of a digital tax or financial obligation that potentially discriminates against US companies.

As long as the regulation applies to all companies, and is consistent with the promised intellectual property protections, this agreement still recognises Indonesia’s right to enforce its domestic laws.

The following are the points from the agreement relevant to the idea of financial obligations for digital platforms that monetise the journalistic content of media companies.

First, Article 2.6 of the US-Indonesia agreement, specifically the Intellectual Property section, states that Indonesia is required to provide robust standards for intellectual property protection, including rights enforcement in the online environment. These protection standards include measures against copyright infringement, including journalistic content, which digital platforms must respect in accordance with this commitment.

Second, Article 3.1 (Trade and Digital Technology Section) prohibits the implementation of compensation for media companies that is considered a “tax” or a levy that specifically targets US platforms only. This is reinforced by Article 3.2, which states that Indonesia must refrain from actions that discriminate against US digital services or products.

Third, Article 2.7 in the Non-Tariff Barriers and Related Matters Section. This provision addresses Indonesia’s commitment to overcoming various trade barriers in services and refraining from imposing new barriers that provide less favourable treatment to US service providers compared to domestic providers.

The fourth point is in Article 7.3. This article does not prohibit either Indonesia or the US from taking action to protect economic or national security, or other similar reasons consistent with domestic law.

Additionally, Indonesia can still impose internal taxes, fees, or other levies on electronic transmissions as long as they do not conflict with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules for goods or services.

Fifth, the reference to WTO rules serves to ensure that Indonesia’s digital economy regulations must be fair, transparent, and do not discriminate against US companies compared to local companies or those from other countries.

In conclusion, this trade agreement does not specifically prohibit Indonesia from imposing an obligation on digital platforms to pay compensation to media companies.

However, Indonesia must ensure that the regulation is not discriminatory toward US companies compared to platforms from other countries or local companies.

In the context of international trade law and Reciprocal Trade Agreements, determining whether a rule is discriminatory or not depends on the principles of de jure (by law) and de facto (in fact).

If Indonesian regulations explicitly state that compensation obligations only apply to ‘US-based companies,’ then the rule is clearly discriminatory by law and violates WTO agreements.

However, regulations in the European Union and Canada that govern global platforms typically use general criteria such as ‘number of monthly active users’ or ‘annual revenue’ within that country.

In fact (de facto), the room for debate remains open. Even if the rule uses neutral criteria (e.g., ‘number of monthly active users’ or ‘annual revenue’), the US could argue that the rule is actually discriminatory if the criteria are intended to snare US companies while local platforms or those from other countries with similar functions are not subjected to the same burden.

The most favoured nation (MFN) principle in international trade requires Indonesia to provide equal treatment to all trading partners.

This is where TikTok’s position becomes important. Technically and legally, TikTok is not US-based. TikTok is owned by ByteDance Ltd., which is headquartered in Beijing, while TikTok’s global headquarters are in Singapore and the US. If the revision of the Copyright Law and other digital platform regulations also impose obligations on TikTok, then Indonesia can be considered to have met the MFN (Most Favoured Nation) principle.

In addition to TikTok, Indonesia must also ensure that domestic platforms fulfil the same obligations. The goal is to avoid being seen as discriminatory toward US companies. This is in accordance with the national treatment principle recognised in global trade law.

Meanwhile, if the reference criteria are based on “function,” such as monetising news, then the regulation also needs to require domestic platforms that monetise journalistic content to provide compensation for press companies.

Lastly, Article 3.3 requires Indonesia to communicate with the US if there are digital policies that “endanger the primary interests of the US.” This indicates that rules concerning large platforms (such as Google or Meta) will certainly be subject to strict diplomatic consultation. In my view, this is what has the potential to become a subject of further negotiations between Indonesia and the US, considering the large number of users of both platforms in Indonesia.

However, if the government views the sustainability of the media as being as important as the sustainability of democracy, then the revision of the Copyright Law—which regulates the obligations of digital platforms that monetise journalistic work—must be fought for before Indonesian journalism deteriorates further.