HNW Criticises Indonesia-US Trade Agreement, Calls for Review of Halal Labelling Provisions

Deputy Chairman of the MPR RI, Hidayat Nur Wahid (HNW), has highlighted concerns regarding the Reciprocal Trade Agreement between Indonesia and the United States. This includes provisions related to the mandatory inclusion of halal certificates for halal products and non-halal labels for non-halal products.

He stated that Indonesia is a sovereign nation and a state governed by law. In this context, the applicable law in Indonesia is Law No. 33 of 2014 concerning Halal Product Assurance (JPH). This regulation is reinforced by Law No. 6 of 2023 on Job Creation, which stipulates the mandatory inclusion of halal labels for halal products (Article 25) and the inclusion of non-halal labels for non-halal products (Article 26).

Regarding the Indonesia-US Trade Agreement, many members of the public are aware that the agreement obscures the provisions on halal labelling, so that they do not apply to imported goods from the US. HNW reminded the Indonesian government to be open to constructive input from the public, including from the MUI.

In this regard, the government can review and re-evaluate the provisions related to halal product labelling in the trade agreement (Argument on Reciprocal Trade/ART) with the United States. The aim is to ensure that it complies with the laws in force in Indonesia and that reciprocity is respected by the US.

HNW believes that the argument regarding the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) on halal certification, put forward by the government, is contradictory to the various provisions of the trade agreement. The agreement tends not to comply with the provisions relating to the JPH system as regulated in Indonesian law.

“According to the Head of BPJPH, Indonesia, through the Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Produk Halal (BPJPH), has indeed established an MRA for halal certification with various countries, including the United States. However, when the Indonesia-US Reciprocal Trade Agreement states that it exempts various types of products from halal certification, it is clear that this is not an MRA but is inconsistent with the provisions of the JPH Law which is still in force in Indonesia,” HNW stated in a statement on Wednesday (25/2/2026).

“Therefore, in accordance with the principle of reciprocity, which is the spirit of the trade agreement, the Indonesian government should reopen discussions on the issue of halal labelling with the relevant parties in the US. So that this trade agreement does not only benefit the US but actually harms Indonesia as a state of law and sovereignty with consumers who are overwhelmingly Muslim,” he added.

This member of the DPR RI from the PKS faction explained that the MRA established by BPJPH with Foreign Halal Certification Bodies (LHLN) is essentially related to the recognition and mutual acceptance of halal certificates between the two countries. This means that products circulating in Indonesia from countries that have an MRA must still have a halal certificate, even though the certificate is issued by the LHLN and not by BPJPH.

Unfortunately, HNW said that the points in the agreement in the ART seem to want to eliminate the obligation of halal certification and the inclusion of non-halal labels for products that are not halal. In the Specific Commitments section (Annex III), Non-Tariff Barriers (Section 2), Indonesia is mentioned as being required to exempt American products from halal certification and the obligation to include halal labels on non-animal products (Article 2.22), cosmetics, health products, and other manufactured goods (Article 2.9).

According to HNW, the emergence of these points raises concerns and legal uncertainty in the community. This also raises the question of whether the intention is to strengthen the validity of halal certificates from the United States or to eliminate the obligation of halal certification, and to eliminate the obligation to include non-halal labels on goods produced in the United States and to be traded in Indonesia.

“Article 4 of Law Number 33 of 2014 concerning Halal Product Assurance, which is still in effect in Indonesia, clearly states that products entering, circulating, and being traded in Indonesia must have a halal certificate, and products that are not halal must also include the label ‘non-halal’ (Article 26 paragraph 2),” he said.

“This should be the reference that the Government fights for in discussions and before the signing of the agreement which is called reciprocal, because fulfilling and upholding the Human Rights of Indonesian citizens, including as consumers, is the obligation of the Indonesian State (1945 Constitution Article 28 I paragraph 4). In addition, it is a form of effort to uphold the sovereignty of the state as a state of law (1945 Constitution Article 1 paragraph 3) in the field related to the halal and haram of products,” he continued.

HNW emphasised that the elimination of a number of halal provisions will have an impact on the fulfilment of human rights related to religion and the practice of religion as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution. This includes consuming or receiving explanations about the halal or non-halal status of products for Indonesian citizens who are predominantly Muslim.

In addition, this could also hinder the realisation of the government’s program to make Indonesia a leading country in halal products, and distort Indonesia’s advantage in the global halal industry.

Based on the ranking of the Global Islamic Economy Indicator (GIEI) 2024, Indonesia is ranked 3rd in the world in the field of Halal, after Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. One of the products that makes Indonesia excel is halal cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. Unfortunately, these products will face imports of cosmetic and pharmaceutical products from the US with the exemption of halal status as agreed in the ART.

“Let’s not let the reciprocal trade agreement (ART) with the US actually be ‘non-reciprocal’ in practice because it harms Indonesia by not respecting the law on JPH which is still in effect in Indonesia, and economically actually harms consumers in Indonesia who are predominantly Muslim by eliminating halal labels, which could have a negative impact on the developing halal industry,” he concluded.