Brazil's unpopular president takes advantage of Trump's tariff threats
He is a friend of Vladimir Putin, a disciple of Fidel Castro and an associate of the late Hugo Chávez. He knows the ropes of power and how to manipulate them in his favor.
For him, President Trump's recent threatened tariffs — made as part of a demand to drop the prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump friend and ally — aren't a problem, they're a blessing in disguise.
Bolsonaro is on trial for his alleged role in riots at government buildings after Lula defeated him in 2022. And now Trump's intervention is helping Lula politically.
'Brazil belongs to Brazilians … We are a big and sovereign nation' says the presidential X account. Brazil's economic crisis and Lula's unpopularity seem to be fading away while the nationalist carnival grows strident and the leftist leader campaigns, enraged and excited, in the name of sovereignty.
Lula knows the game and how to play it. He wants to replicate Prime Minister Mark Carney's successful strategy in Canada.
In January, Carney was unknown by 76 percent of voters. His party seemed doomed to an election loss. Not even he believed he would win. However, he had a stroke of luck: Trump's tariffs against Canada fueled his campaign, ignited nationalist sentiments and handed him a solid victory.
Lula isn't interested in resolving the crisis with the U.S — no way. His entire career has been based on anti-imperialist and anti-American rhetoric to keep his legions of followers motivated and resentful, blaming others for their misfortunes instead of seeking real solutions. This is the classic Cuban rhetoric out of Eduardo Galeano's 'Open Veins of Latin America,' portraying a region abused and mistreated by powerful empires — meaning the U.S. and Europe.
The president of Brazil has done everything he could to obtain 50 percent tariffs. Lula strongly criticized Operation Midnight Hammer against Iran. He called Israel genocidal. He promoted the end of the dollar's hegemony. He advocated for the creation of an alternative to the World Bank. He sought total alignment with Communist China and leaned into Brazil's role in the BRICS group.
The leftist leader of Latin America's largest country sees the crisis with the U.S. as a Christmas present in July. He is not interested in ending the confrontation with Trump. On the contrary, he seeks to fuel it, stir it up and extend it until Brazil's October 2026 presidential election. Lula has said he would consider running for president for a fourth term to halt the advance of the radical right. Seems like his campaign has already begun with the announcement of the tariffs.
But while Lula stands to gain a lot from the confrontation, his country stands to lose. Although China is the main destination for Brazilian exports, the U.S. is the second largest and also the undisputed leader in foreign direct investments, which until 2021 represented 29.1 percent of this sector, totaling $191.6 billion. China doesn't even appear in the top five for foreign direct investment in Brazil.
Fighting with the U.S. would be disastrous for job creation, especially when the economy is doing poorly under Lula's leadership. Many sectors in Brazil could be affected by the 50 percent tariffs, and Lula says he will try to negotiate, but he's ready to respond with the reciprocity required by law. Oh yes, he's ready. Lula needs to sell himself as the strongman defending sovereignty to revitalize his political image, even if it means riding on the platform of a country in ruins. That's how populists are — they don't care about the national economy, but rather about their personal projects.
Exporters of coffee, orange juice, sugar, and many others would be the victims who bear the brunt of the confrontation that Lula wants to appease by adding gasoline to the fire. Other sectors affected by the tariff war would include steel, cement and the aeronautical industry.
Perhaps the tariffs will never be implemented. Perhaps they will simply be a tool or a strategy to negotiate from a position of strength. But Lula will do everything possible to keep this trade battle alive, to revive his battered image abroad and ultimately to realize his dream of becoming president for a fourth term.
Fasten your seatbelts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump releases files related to MLK assassination, despite King family opposition
The National Archives released over 240,000 pages of records in accordance with an executive order from January. The King family hopes people read the FBI files with a skeptical eye. President Donald Trump's administration on Monday released over 240,000 pages of records surrounding the 1968 assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., a move made despite objections from some of the civil rights icon's family. Over 240,000 pages of records have been made available on the website of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. The Washington, D.C.-based agency says the release is in response to an executive order from Trump's White House dating back to January. King's family objected to the release, saying the Federal Bureau of Investigation's surveillance of the progressive leader was tainted by the agency's political bent at the time. "We recognize that the release of documents concerning the assassination of our father, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., has long been a subject of interest, captivating public curiosity for decades," the family said in a statement. But "the release of these files must be viewed within their full historical context. During our father's lifetime, he was relentlessly targeted by an invasive, predatory, and deeply disturbing disinformation and surveillance campaign orchestrated by J. Edgar Hoover through the Federal Bureau of Investigation." Hoover's goal, the family says, was to find dirt on MLK in order to discredit him and the civil rights movement. Documents related to the King assassination are the latest trove of materials to be made public through Executive Order 14176. The Jan. 23, 2025 order also called for the release of materials related to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy. Files related to the JFK assassination were released in March. The full findings of the government investigations into the three killings have been hidden for decades, sparking wide-ranging speculation and preventing a sense of closure for many Americans. All three men were national and international icons whose assassinations — and the theories swirling around them — became the stuff of books, movies, controversy, and the pages of history itself. Trump's move to declassify the materials related to MLK also comes amid a political firestorm in Washington over the release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the former financier and convicted sex offender who died while awaiting trial in 2019.
USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
UnitedHealth Group and Deckers Outdoor are two of the worst-performing stocks in 2025
After briefly dipping into bear market territory just three months ago, the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) has quickly managed to recover, rising 6.6% year to date (as of this writing). But not all stocks in the index are doing well. If you're hunting for beaten-down bargains, these two laggards should top your watch list. This healthcare giant is in trouble Shares of UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH) are down 41% so far in 2025. Over the past few months, United Healthcare has sharply reduced its annual forecast, experienced a rapid rise in claim costs, attracted regulatory scrutiny over potential overbilling, and lost its CEO in an abrupt departure. Several analysts have cut their ratings and price targets on the stock as a result. Though the company does face near-term uncertainty, the recent sell-off has made UnitedHealth perhaps one of the biggest bargains on the market today with shares trading at just over 12 times earnings. Investors who choose to buy the dip, however, should be prepared to experience continued volatility. Deckers Outdoor is down roughly 50% Deckers Outdoor (NYSE: DECK) makes footwear and apparel with a brand portfolio that includes UGG, Hoka, Teva and Koolaburra. With shares cut in half in 2025, Deckers is the worst-performing stock in the S&P 500 year to date. What's going on? President Trump's new tariff policies forced the company to scrap its entire annual forecast, with management citing unpredictable increases in manufacturing costs as roughly 20% of its products are made in China. Costs are expected to rise by around $150 million in fiscal 2026. After the drop, shares trade at just 15.5 times trailing earnings with some arguing the stock is now a long-term buy. Ryan Vanzo has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Deckers Outdoor. The Motley Fool recommends UnitedHealth Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. Should you invest $1,000 in UnitedHealth Group right now? Offer from the Motley Fool: Before you buy stock in UnitedHealth Group, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and UnitedHealth Group wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $674,281!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,050,415!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,059% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 180% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks »
Los Angeles Times
19 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Harvard seeks billions in funding restored at a pivotal hearing in its standoff with Trump
BOSTON — Harvard University appeared in federal court Monday in a pivotal case in its battle with the Trump administration, as the storied institution argued the government illegally cut $2.6 billion in federal funding. President Trump's administration has battered the nation's oldest and wealthiest university with sanctions for months as it presses a series of demands on the Ivy League school, which it decries as a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism. Harvard has resisted, and the lawsuit over the cuts to its research grants represents the primary challenge to the administration in a standoff that is being widely watched across higher education and beyond. A lawyer for Harvard, Steven Lehotsky, said at Monday's hearing the case is about the government trying to control the 'inner workings' of Harvard. The funding cuts, if not reversed, could lead to the loss of research, damaged careers and the closing of labs, he said. 'It's not about Harvard's conduct,' he said. 'It's about the government's conduct toward Harvard.' The case is before U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, who is presiding over lawsuits brought by Harvard against the administration's efforts to keep it from hosting international students. In that case, she temporarily blocked the administration's efforts. At Monday's hearing, Harvard asked her to reverse a series of funding freezes. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money. A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said the Trump administration has authority to cancel the grants after concluding the funding did not align with its priorities, namely Trump's executive order combating antisemitism. He argued Harvard allowed antisemitism to flourish at the university following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel, including protesters camped out on campus chanting antisemitic slogans as well attacks on Jewish students. 'Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,' said Velchik, a Harvard alumnus. 'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.' Burroughs pushed back, questioning how the government could make 'ad-hoc' decisions to cancel grants and do so without offering evidence that any of the research is antisemitic. At one point, she called the government's assertions 'mind-boggling.' She also argued the government had provided 'no documentation, no procedure' to 'suss out' whether Harvard administrators 'have taken enough steps or haven't' to combat antisemitism. 'The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,' she said. 'I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong?' Velchik said the case comes down to the government's choosing how best to spend billions of dollars in research funding. Harvard's lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands from a federal antisemitism task force in April. A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's suit. The task force's demands included sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, Harvard was told to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. Harvard President Alan Garber says the university has made changes to combat antisemitism but said no government 'should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.' Monday's hearing ended without Burroughs issuing a ruling from the bench. A ruling is expected later in writing. Several dozen alumni from Harvard joined students and faculty to decry the effort to cut the federal funds, holding up signs reading 'Hands Off Harvard,' 'Strong USA Needs Strong Harvard' and 'Our Liberty Is Not For Sale.' Anurima Bhargava, who wrote the amicus brief on behalf of more than 12,000 fellow Harvard alumni in the case, said the graduates spoke up because 'they understand what is at stake here and what the end goal of the government is, to take away our ability to pursue the mission, the freedom and the values that have been the cornerstone of higher education.' Three Harvard researchers who lost their federal funding spoke about disruptions to the long-term impact of funding on cancer, cardiovascular diseases and other health conditions. They said the cuts could force researchers to go overseas to work. 'Unfortunately, the termination of this research work would mean the end of this progress and the implications are serious for the well-being of Americans and our children into the future,' said Walter Willett, a Harvard professor of epidemiology and nutrition who lost grants that funded long-term studies of men's and women's health. 'This is just one example of the arbitrary and capricious weaponization of taxpayer money that is undermining the health of Americans,' he said. The same day Harvard rejected the government's demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53 billion, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation and argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism — a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence.' After Monday's hearing, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to attack Burroughs, calling her a 'TOTAL DISASTER.' Burroughs was appointed by former President Barack Obama. 'Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America,' he wrote. 'Much of this money comes from the U.S.A., all to the detriment of other Schools, Colleges, and Institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer.' Casey writes for the Associated Press.
