Bolsonaro's Son Leaves Congress, Moves to US Amid Feud With Judge
(Bloomberg) -- A prominent son of former Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro is taking a leave of absence from Congress to live in the US, where he has sought to build Republican support for his father's legal battles with the country's Supreme Court.
ICE Eyes Massive California Tent Facility Amid Space Constraints
How Britain's Most Bike-Friendly New Town Got Built
The Dark Prophet of Car-Clogged Cities
Washington, DC, Region Braces for 'Devastating' Cuts from Congress
NYC Plans for Flood Protection Without Federal Funds
Eduardo Bolsonaro, who represents Sao Paulo in Brazil's lower house, said in a video posted to social media Tuesday that he would remain in the US to avoid possible imprisonment by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, without specifying or detailing the supposed legal threats he is facing.
The Supreme Court is currently considering criminal charges filed by Brazil's top prosecutor alleging that Jair Bolsonaro attempted a coup following his 2022 election loss to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Moraes and other judges are set to determine later this month whether right-wing former leader should face trial.
Eduardo Bolsonaro is currently in the US, where he has traveled repeatedly this year to draw the attention of Donald Trump's administration and Republican lawmakers to the case against his father — and their claims that Moraes has overstepped his constitutional authority in investigations into the Bolsonaros and social media companies as part of a fight against so-called fake news.
In the video, the legislator accused Moraes and other judges of trying to 'use my position as a lawmaker as a tool of blackmail and coercion' in order to 'arrest me and prevent me from representing the best interests of my country.'
Despite the claims, two representatives of Bolsonaro's Liberal Party said they had no knowledge of any cases that could lead to the arrest of the congressman. Eduardo Bolsonaro didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
The most recent case involving Eduardo Bolsonaro is a complaint from Lula's Workers' Party requesting that the Supreme Court seize the legislator's passport over allegations that he is violating Brazilian sovereignty by mobilizing US officials against Moraes. The country's top prosecutor has not yet responded to the complaint.
The lawmaker said he would take the temporary, unpaid leave of absence to 'fully dedicate myself' to the cause of building US support for his father and seek 'the appropriate sanctions for human rights violators.' He said that his father could be 'unjustly imprisoned,' and that he 'may never have the chance to meet him personally again.'
The former president said in an interview in January that he hopes Trump's return to the White House will help him overturn the eight-year political ban he received after the 2022 election.
Moraes has also drawn the ire of the right in both countries over his efforts to combat online misinformation, which have included demands that social media platforms take down accounts of users accused of spreading fake news. He suspended access to Elon Musk's X last year, and in February blocked the US video sharing service Rumble Inc. — moves that have earned blowback from some Republican lawmakers.
Trump's media company sued Moraes after the Rumble order, accusing him of trying to illegally suppress the US social media activity of conservative Brazilian voices.
Tesla's Gamble on MAGA Customers Won't Work
The Real Reason Trump Is Pushing 'Buy American'
The Future of Higher Ed Is in Austin
Snap CEO Evan Spiegel Bets Meta Can't Copy High-Tech Glasses
Nvidia Looks Past DeepSeek and Tariffs for AI's Next Chapter
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump-Musk feud: Are electric vehicles and Tesla at the heart of the breakup?
The President of the United States of America and one of the world's most influential billionaires are at odds after months of collaboration. The confrontation escalated Thursday with Elon Musk saying Trump would have lost the election without him in a post on X. President Donald Trump in turn referred to his former senior advisor as "the man who lost his mind" in a Friday morning ABC News phone interview. Republican Trump allies are now also speaking out against Musk. Musk's breakup with the administration has been public and is well-documented, with Trump and the Tesla CEO trading calculated jabs like pro boxers. The underlying reason behind the sudden intense feud is a serious cause of concern for some American car buyers. "Clean Coal" has been a popular buzzword for not one but two presidential campaigns for Donald Trump. So, Elon Musk's initial choice to stand beside a global warming skeptic as the CEO of a clean energy and automotive company was puzzling to say the least. At first, Musk's involvement with the administration was seen by many as mutually beneficial, since the CEO could potentially reap the benefits of government contracts for Tesla and SpaceX. The general public quickly soured to the idea of the eccentric CEO playing a key role in the administration. By April 8, Tesla stock had nosedived 41.50% from its January 2 share price. Tesla dealers have been attacked and vandalized while other Americans have staged peaceful protests against Musk's involvement in government and role at the Department of Government Efficiency. So, why would a guy who once wore a "Trump Was Right About Everything" hat suddenly publicly oppose his new bill? The short answer is, the two don't see eye to eye on the automotive industry's most controversial powertrain option. The One, Big, Beautiful Bill could decimate Tesla. President Donald Trump's stance and actions against EV adoption in America includes: Supporting the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, which suggests phasing out a federal EV tax credit that would benefit thousands of Tesla buyers Claiming former President Joe Biden's EV mandate "would kill 40% of the auto industry's jobs", according to Ordering the shut down of many federal electric vehicle chargers and pausing massive federal EV fleet purchases, according to Elon Musk (and Tesla's) stance and actions for EV adoption in America: Elon Musk bio says "Tesla's mission has been to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy" Musk claimed "the world does need electric cars" during a 60 Minutes interview and factory tour, asserting that Tesla has a crucial role in the future of EVs Tesla has collaborated with Ford, GM, Stellantis, Rivian, Volkswagen, Honda, Acura, Hyundai, Kia, Toyota and more to provide Tesla Supercharger access to EVs, making them easier to charge for American drivers Tesla stock recently plummeted in response to the feud between Trump and Musk. The President has also threatened Musk's government contracts amidst the dispute. The bill appears to be the focal point of the rift, but the two clearly have different ideas on what America's future should be. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk may have been able to join forces over their mutual stances on certain conservative points and a hatred of bureaucracy, but their White House tag team was short-lived. The One, Big, Beautiful Bill directly undermines some of the actions Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency have taken since the two united. Trump is 78 years old and expresses a desire to bring America back to a golden age of manufacturing before globalism outsourced American jobs and created a reliance on foreign trade. He also speaks about returning the country to an age where mining and drilling for fossil fuel production were prioritized over environmental concerns. Musk, on the other hand, is a 53-year-old futurist who strives to make humans a multi-planetary species and has made a fortune from innovation and technological disruption. At a glance, the issue seems to be about the One, Big, Beautiful Bill attacking Tesla's bottom line but the two polarizing figures are fundamentally different in terms of future aspirations. Based on Trump's falling out with several former members of the first Trump administration and Musk's known adversarial nature in the private sector, this could be the end for, arguably, the most fascinating duo of 2025. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump vs Elon Musk: Could Tesla, EVs be at the art of the feud?
Hamilton Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Panama's president appeals to a higher power as nearly 2 months of protests roil nation
PANAMA CITY (AP) — Panama's José Raúl Mulino appealed to a higher power on Friday, calling in an archbishop and a rabbi to deliver a message to striking banana workers after nearly two months of social protest that have roiled the country. Mulino has said he won't reverse controversial changes to Panama's social security system, courts have deemed the strike illegal and top banana Chiquita Brands fired nearly 5,000 striking workers last month in Panama's western Bocas del Toro province. But nothing has stopped the protests. So at his weekly news briefing Friday, Mulino said he had met with Archbishop José Domingo Ulloa and one of Panama's leading Jewish figures, Rabbi Gustavo Kraselnik, to enlist them as intermediaries. He gave Ulloa a personal letter to bring to Francisco Smith, leader of the striking banana workers' union. In the letter, Mulino said, he committed to send proposed legislation to the Congress that would be favorable for the country's banana sector, above all its workers. But he conditioned the proposal on former workers lifting their protest. There was precedent for the maneuver. In 2022, Ulloa brokered a dialogue that eased protests over the high cost of fuel and food. In 2018, Ulloa mediated a dispute between parts of the government. Smith, secretary general of the Banana Industry Workers Union, had said earlier Friday before Mulino's announcement that he was open to dialogue. Union leaders planned to travel to the capital Monday to meet with the president of the National Assembly and present a list of demands. He insisted, however, that changes be made to the social security reform. Smith, who has led the protest in western Bocas del Toro province, has said the social security reform passed in March threatens the special privileges laid out for banana workers in another law, covering things like subsidies and labor protections. The impact has been acute. Chiquita Brands said last month they had lost at least $75 million before announcing a temporary halt to their operations in Panama. Demonstrations have not been limited to the banana workers , to Bocas del Toro or even to the social security changes. At various times teachers, construction workers and students have protested as well. Authorities have said they'll withhold the pay of 15,000 treachers for their strike. On Thursday, border police clashed with protesters who had blocked a highway in eastern Darien province, leaving injured on both sides. In addition to the social security changes, demonstrators have protested a security agreement giving U.S. troops access to some Panamanian facilities and efforts to reopen a massive copper mine. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court leaves in place District of Columbia's gun restriction on large magazines
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday left in place a longstanding gun restriction in the District of Columbia that bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, opting once again to avoid taking up a new gun rights case. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that generally favors gun rights, turned away a challenge to the Washington, D.C., law just a few days after rejecting an appeal over a similar law in Rhode Island. Then, the court also left in place Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons including the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. Follow live politics coverage here The court expanded gun rights in a major 2022 ruling that found for the first time that the right to bear arms under the Constitution's Second Amendment extends outside the home. But the court has since frustrated gun owners by declining to take up cases that would expand upon that ruling. The District of Columbia has long been a legal battleground over gun restrictions. The Supreme Court's landmark 2008 ruling that for the first time found that people have an individual right to bear arms in self defense in their homes arose from a challenge to a D.C. law. In the latest case, four gun owners challenged the restriction on large-capacity magazines that was enacted in the aftermath of the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, saying the restriction is unlawful under the later 2022 decision. Both a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the law. The appeals court, in a 2-1 vote, said in a ruling last year that although large-capacity magazines are arms under the Second Amendment and have been in common use for years, they can be regulated because they are "particularly dangerous." Last summer, the Supreme Court sidestepped multiple gun-related disputes soon after it issued a ruling that upheld a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. In other action on pending appeals Friday, the court decided against taking up a significant election case involving mail-in ballots in the battleground state of Pennsylvania that pitted Republicans against Democrats. The decision leaves intact a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that said voters who send mail-in ballots that are flagged as defective can then file a separate provision in-person ballot. The Republican National Committee was seeking to overturn the 2024 state court decision, while the Democratic National Committee was defending it. This article was originally published on
