Ericson M. Scorsim . Lawyer and Public Law Consultant. PhD in Law from USP. Author of the e-books “The Geopolitical Game of 5G Communications: United States, China, and the Impact on Brazil”, “Geopolitics of Communications”, and “Anti -Toxic Leadership in the Brazilian Presidency 2018–2022”, all available to the public through Amazon .
The U.S. government, through Executive Order 13.818 of July 30, 2025, signed by President Donald Trump, adopted a series of measures against Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, including restrictions on his U.S. passport and the freezing of his assets and access to U.S. financial institutions, among other measures. The U.S. government alleged that Justice Alexandre de Moraes: “abused his judicial authority to threaten, harass, and intimidate thousands of political opponents, protect corrupt allies, and suppress dissent, to the detriment of American companies.” The US government’s action said nothing, but it appears that all proceedings against those investigated and accused include constitutional guarantees of due process, adversarial proceedings, and a full defense. The US government further alleged: “Minister Moraes unilaterally issued hundreds of orders to secretly censor his political critics. When US companies refused to comply with these orders, he imposed substantial fines, ordered the companies’ exclusion from Brazil’s social media market, threatened their executives with criminal prosecution, and, in one case, froze the assets of a US company in Brazil as a means of coercing compliance.” Furthermore, the US government’s decision did not specify that court fines are applied in cases of noncompliance with court orders and Brazilian law. There was no judicial censorship, only a restriction on the disclosure of an unlawful act. Finally, the US government stated: “Indeed, in addition to detaining individuals without trial for social media posts, Minister Moraes is currently overseeing the Brazilian government’s criminal prosecution of Paulo Figueiredo, a US resident, for statements made on US soil, and has supported criminal investigations against other US citizens after they reported his serious human rights violations and acts of corruption.” The statement fails to clarify that the individuals being prosecuted are for democratic acts, in accordance with Brazilian law, guaranteeing due process. The lawsuit fails to clarify that it is not the Brazilian government that is bringing the charges, but rather an autonomous body such as the Attorney General’s Office. Apparently, the Attorney General’s Office is investigating Mr. Paulo Figueiredo and his involvement in alleged crimes committed by Eduardo Bolsonaro, son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, such as obstruction of justice and procedural coercion, and his involvement in lobbying for sanctions imposed by the U.S. government against Supreme Court Justices. The US government’s action continues: “President Trump is defending American companies from extortion, protecting American citizens from political persecution, safeguarding free speech from censorship, and saving the U.S. economy from being subject to the arbitrary decrees of a tyrannical foreign judge.” There is no evidence that American companies are targets of extortion. Nor is there any evidence of judicial censorship; after all, restricting illicit content is perfectly possible.
Justice Alexandre de Moraes’ actions are in accordance with Brazilian law. One can criticize some of his decisions, but not accuse or attack a Minister of the Republic. These actions are being taken collectively, not by the Justice in question. This is the first time in the history of this country that a Supreme Court Justice has been attacked by a foreign government, with serious accusations. This very act of interference in the Brazilian Judiciary represents an attack on Brazil’s sovereignty. To make matters worse, the United States Embassy in Brazil published a press release with possible threats to members of the legislature and other Justices of the Supreme Federal Court. Furthermore, in the same act, the US government increased economic tariffs against Brazil. The focus here is to demonstrate abusive interference by a foreign government in Brazil’s sovereignty. This is a typical case of lawfare, that is, the use of US laws in the context of a trade and/or political war. The so-called Executive Order, a type of presidential decree, mentions the following laws: International Emergency Economy Powers Act, National Emergencies Act and Global Magnitsky Act. From an economic perspective, there is no justification for the tariff increase, since the United States has a trade surplus with Brazil. There is no economic emergency to justify the measure. Contrary to what the act stated, it is not judicial actions that cause harm to the US economy. Indeed, it is this action by the US government that causes harm to the Brazilian economy.
Magnitsky Act is used in cases of corruption and human rights abuses, which is clearly not the case here. This US law was created in the context of international relations between the United States and Russia. It is applicable to specific cases of serious human rights violations under authoritarian regimes. The US government’s action mentions alleged violations of the freedom of expression of US citizens, as determined by the Supreme Federal Court. The US government alleges substantial fines imposed on the US company, including the freezing of accounts, the suspension of funding, and censorship. The US government also mentions the political persecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro. This would prevent fair elections in 2026. Thus, the Brazilian government is harming the US economy and its companies by exercising freedom of expression. This is the US government’s narrative to manipulate facts, truth, and reality. What the US government’s action failed to mention is that the United States has a surplus in its trade accounts with Brazil. This alone would be grounds for rejecting the application of tariffs. There is no economic basis for imposing tariffs on Brazil. The US government’s tariffs are being used as an instrument of retaliation against Brazil, the Brazilian economy, and the Brazilian people. This issue is an aspect of geopolitics and geoeconomics and lawfare. And the US government has applied its legislation extraterritorially, interfering with the sovereignty of other countries.[1] There are a number of US laws that apply to the jurisdiction of other countries, including export control laws. This is a sensitive point that deserves debate and transparency, including at the international level. This is an issue that Brazil should debate. Incidentally, Brazil approved the “economic reciprocity law”, Law 15,122 of 2022, with criteria for the suspension of commercial concessions, investments, and obligations related to intellectual property in the face of unilateral measures adopted by other countries.
The U.S. government exerts intense control over other countries’ exports and investments, including in the context of trade wars. Therefore, it is important for Brazil to debate a broader law for its national defense in the face of lawfare and trade wars.
On the other hand, the US government’s act did not say that in the case of a US company fined by Minister Alexandre de Moraes for failing to comply with court orders, it is Trump Media, owned by President Donald Trump himself. This company, based in the United States, filed a lawsuit in the US courts against Minister Alexandre Moraes. Thus, the US president is using the government to advance his personal interests.
The U.S. government’s action fails to mention the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision, in Extraordinary Appeals No. 103,7396 (General Repercussion Issue 987) and No. 105,738 (General Repercussion Issue 535), which established a series of obligations for social media companies. Therefore, this Supreme Court decision ran counter to the interests of U.S. companies and the U.S. government. Within the Superior Electoral Court, several decisions were made contrary to the interests of U.S. companies for noncompliance with electoral law.
Ultimately, it can be deduced that this action by the US government is retaliation against the decisions adopted in Extraordinary Appeals No. 103,7396 (General Repercussion Topic 987) and 105,738 (General Repercussion Topic 535), which established a series of obligations for social media companies. The US government action cites the defense of freedom of expression as one of its reasons for the measures. Now, as we know, freedom of expression is not an absolute right; in extreme situations, it can be restricted to preserve other fundamental values. Incidentally, the US judicial system has so-called “gag orders,” a judicial “gag order” to prevent the disclosure of information to third parties. Typically, when it comes to freedom of expression and human rights, the US government uses a double standard: when it wants to, it adequately defends freedom of expression and fundamental rights, but when it doesn’t, it doesn’t. of these fundamental freedoms. The U.S. government raises moral questions regarding the innovation of this type of discourse, including the use of government acts and lawsuits to subpoena political opponents. Another point is that the U.S. government’s action fails to mention that former President Jair Bolsonaro is a defendant in a criminal action brought by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office for the following crimes: attempted coup d’état and armed criminal organization, among others, based on Brazilian law.[2] To understand the historical facts related to former President Jair Bolsonaro’s government and his political strategy of using social media and his anti-democratic profile, there is literature on the subject.[3] The U.S. government’s action fails to mention that there is an entire social media campaign of intimidation, harassment, and coercion against Minister Alexandre de Moraes by political groups allied with former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is charged with attempted coup d’état. The U.S. government’s action fails to consider the existence of democratic rules for free, open, and transparent elections in Brazil. In fact, Brazil does not have an electoral college like the United States. Brazil has electronic voting, while the United States does not. he has.
Brazil has rules to prevent candidates convicted by the Electoral Court from running. The United States has essentially two political parties. Brazil has several political parties. On the other hand, it should be noted that The geopolitical and geopolitical dispute between countries lies in internet and application infrastructure. North American companies, known as “Big Tech”, dominate this social media application sector and earn immense fortunes from these businesses, as well as possess the ability to dominate the cognitive layer of the population. There is also the possibility of influence, information, and psychological operations being carried out by the US government’s intelligence services. In 2013, the National Security Agency spied on the Brazilian government, including Petrobras and other companies. Therefore, it is essential that Brazil adopt a new regulatory framework more suited to “Big Tech ,” in defense of national interests. On these topics, see: Scorsim, Ericson. Geopolitical game between the United States and China in 5G technologies: impact and Scorsim, Ericson. Geopolitics of Communications, both available on Amazon and published in 2022. The European Union, for example, strongly defends its digital and cyber sovereignty, with significant investments in communications infrastructure. The European Union also has trade defense and anti-coercion legislation to defend against economic threats from other countries. Furthermore, there are flaws in the legitimacy of government action regarding its motives. On January 6, 2021, extremist supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Congress in the United States, attempting to prevent then-President-elect Joe Biden from taking office. In 2025, again during Trump’s presidency, he decided to pardon 1,500 people accused of storming the U.S. Congress. Therefore, there is a lack of legitimacy and credibility to seek to influence the Supreme Court’s trial of former President Jair Bolsonaro in his attempt to rescue and rehabilitate his electoral campaign for 2026. In short, the US government seeks to impose its arbitrary will on Brazil’s internal affairs, interfering with Brazilian sovereignty, and influencing the country’s electoral process! This is an illegitimate and reprehensible act!
[1] Laws on access to foreign data, foreign surveillance law, among others.
[2] See law on crimes against the Democratic State of Law, Law 14.197/2021.
[3] Scorsim, Ericson. Anti-Toxic Leadership in the Brazilian Presidency – 2018 – 2022, Amazon , 2022.
Crédito de imagem: Google.
