Trump slaps massive tariffs, sanctions on Brazil over Bolsonaro trial
The announcement of 50 percent tariffs saw Trump make good on his threat to wield US economic might to punish Brazil -- and its Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, in particular -- for what he has termed a "witch hunt" against former president Bolsonaro.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva hit back at the move, saying he would defend "the sovereignty of the Brazilian people in the face of measures announced by the president of the United States."
Unlike other tariffs Trump is slapping on economies around the world, the measures against Brazil have been framed in openly political terms, sweeping aside centuries-old trade ties and a surplus that Brasilia put at $284 million last year.
The moves dramatically increased the pressure on Moraes, who has emerged as a powerful and polarizing thorn in the far-right's side, after clashing repeatedly with Bolsonaro and others over disinformation.
Trump's executive order added a 40 percent tariff on Brazilian products, bringing total trade duties to 50 percent, the White House announced.
The order said the new duties would not come into effect for seven days, and listed exemptions on some of Brazil's major exports -- including planes, orange juice and pulp, Brazil nuts, and some iron, steel and aluminum products.
The Brazilian government's "politically motivated persecution, intimidation, harassment, censorship, and prosecution of (Bolsonaro) and thousands of his supporters are serious human rights abuses that have undermined the rule of law in Brazil," the White House said in a fact sheet announcing the tariffs.
It also cited Brazil's "unusual and extraordinary policies and actions harming US companies, the free speech rights of US persons, US foreign policy, and the US economy," and singled out Moraes by name.
The new duties were announced shortly after the US Treasury slapped sanctions on Moraes, which followed a similar move by the State Department earlier this month.
Brazil's Attorney General Jorge Messias slammed the sanctions as "arbitrary" and "unjustifiable."
Bolsonaro is facing up to 40 years in prison for allegedly plotting a coup to stay in power after losing the 2022 election to leftist Lula.
Prosecutors say the plot included a plan to arrest and even assassinate Lula, his vice president Geraldo Alckmin, and Moraes.
Brazil has refused to drop the charges, and Trump's intervention in the case has so far boosted Lula's popularity.
On Wednesday, Human Rights Watch's Americas director, Juanita Goebertus, declared the US tariffs and sanctions "a clear violation of judicial independence."
'Witch hunt'
Both US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent issued statements Wednesday announcing the new sanctions against Moraes.
"Moraes has taken it upon himself to be judge and jury in an unlawful witch hunt against US and Brazilian citizens and companies," Bessent said.
Rubio, who accused Moraes in his statement of "serious human rights abuses," also met his Brazilian counterpart, Mauro Viera, on Wednesday. Viera said that Brazil's judiciary would "not bow to external pressure."
Moraes, 56, has played a controversial role in fighting disinformation.
He was an omnipresent figure during the polarizing 2022 election campaign, aggressively using his rulings to fight election disinformation on social media.
Last year, he ordered the shutdown of tech titan Elon Musk's X network in Brazil for 40 days for failing to tackle disinformation shared mainly by Bolsonaro backers.
Bolsonaro has called Moraes a dictator, while his son Eduardo had lobbied for US sanctions against the "totalitarian" judge.
On Wednesday, Eduardo Bolsonaro said the US action was "not about revenge, it's about justice."
"Abuses of authority now have global consequences," he wrote on X.
The US Treasury cited the Magnitsky Act for the sanctions. It freezes US-based assets and bars travel to the country for foreign officials accused of human rights abuses or corruption.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
France 24
2 hours ago
- France 24
Jury awards over $240 million in damages against Tesla in Autopilot crash lawsuit
A Miami jury decided that Elon Musk's car company Tesla was partly responsible for a deadly crash in Florida involving its Autopilot driver assist technology and must pay the victims more than $240 million in damages. The federal jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on a reckless driver, even one who admitted he was distracted by his cellphone before hitting a young couple out gazing at the stars. The decision comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. The decision ends a four-year long case remarkable not just in its outcome but that it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed and, when that didn't happen, settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. 'This will open the floodgates,' said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. 'It will embolden a lot of people to come to court.' The case also included startling charges by lawyers for the family of the deceased, 22-year-old, Naibel Benavides Leon, and for her injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn't thought it was there. 'We finally learned what happened that night, that the car was actually defective,' said Benavides' sister, Neima Benavides. 'Justice was achieved.' Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to cough up crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, the plaintiffs showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. 'Today's verdict is wrong," Tesla said in a statement, 'and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement lifesaving technology,' They said the plaintiffs concocted a story 'blaming the car when the driver – from day one – admitted and accepted responsibility.' In addition to a punitive award of $200 million, the jury said Tesla must also pay $43 million of a total $129 million in compensatory damages for the crash, bringing the total borne by the company to $243 million. 'It's a big number that will send shock waves to others in the industry,' said financial analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities. 'It's not a good day for Tesla.' Tesla said it will appeal. Even if that fails, the company says it will end up paying far less than what the jury decided because of a pre-trial agreement that limits punitive damages to three times Tesla's compensatory damages. Translation: $172 million, not $243 million. But the plaintiff says their deal was based on a multiple of all compensatory damages, not just Tesla's, and the figure the jury awarded is the one the company will have to pay. It's not clear how much of a hit to Tesla's reputation for safety the verdict in the Miami case will make. Tesla has vastly improved its technology since the crash on a dark, rural road in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019. But the issue of trust generally in the company came up several times in the case, including in closing arguments Thursday. The plaintiffs' lead lawyer, Brett Schreiber, said Tesla's decision to even use the term Autopilot showed it was willing to mislead people and take big risks with their lives because the system only helps drivers with lane changes, slowing a car and other tasks, falling far short of driving the car itself. Schreiber said other automakers use terms like 'driver assist' and 'copilot' to make sure drivers don't rely too much on the technology. 'Words matter,' Schreiber said. 'And if someone is playing fast and lose with words, they're playing fast and lose with information and facts.' Schreiber acknowledged that the driver, George McGee, was negligent when he blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles an hour before slamming into a Chevrolet Tahoe that the couple had parked to get a look at the stars. The Tahoe spun around so hard it was able to launch Benavides 75 feet through the air into nearby woods where her body was later found. It also left Angulo, who walked into the courtroom Friday with a limp and cushion to sit on, with broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. But Schreiber said Tesla was at fault nonetheless. He said Tesla allowed drivers to act recklessly by not disengaging the Autopilot as soon as they begin to show signs of distraction and by allowing them to use the system on smaller roads that it was not designed for, like the one McGee was driving on. 'I trusted the technology too much,' said McGee at one point in his testimony. 'I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.' The lead defense lawyer in the Miami case, Joel Smith, countered that Tesla warns drivers that they must keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel yet McGee chose not to do that while he looked for a dropped cellphone, adding to the danger by speeding. Noting that McGee had gone through the same intersection 30 or 40 times previously and hadn't crashed during any of those trips, Smith said that isolated the cause to one thing alone: 'The cause is that he dropped his cellphone.' The auto industry has been watching the case closely because a finding of Tesla liability despite a driver's admission of reckless behavior would pose significant legal risks for every company as they develop cars that increasingly drive themselves.
LeMonde
4 hours ago
- LeMonde
California and other liberal states sue Trump over transgender care ban
A coalition of liberal US states on Friday, August 1, said it was suing Donald Trump's administration over an order to prevent clinics providing gender-affirming care to children. The lawsuit, brought by officials from California and 15 other states, as well as the District of Columbia, challenges an executive order that denounces the treatment as "chemical and surgical mutilation." The order, which Trump signed in January, calls on the Department of Justice to investigate providers who offer such treatment, even in states where it is legal. "The President and his Administration's relentless attacks on gender-affirming care endanger already vulnerable adolescents whose health and well-being are at risk," California's Attorney General Rob Bonta said. "Their demands that our healthcare providers discriminate against transgender individuals and deny them access to medically-necessary healthcare is cruel and irresponsible." The DoJ said last month it had issued more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics providing treatment to adolescents. US Attorney General Pam Bondi said at the time that "medical professionals and organizations that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology will be held accountable." 'A chilling effect' The lawsuit, filed in a US District Court in Massachusetts, argues that the administration's actions have no legal basis and should be declared unlawful. "These actions have created a chilling effect in which providers are pressured to scale back on their care for fear of prosecution, leaving countless individuals without the critical care they need and are entitled to under law," said Bonta. LGBTQ+ rights have become a divisive subject in the United States, where Trump rode a wave of public support for his crusade against so-called "woke ideology." In his first days in office, Trump declared the federal government would recognize only two genders – men and women – and has targeted transgender people in a slew of other orders. In February, he issued an executive order aimed at banning transgender athletes, allowing federal agencies to halt funding to any institution that does not consider birth-assigned genders in determining sex. The lawsuit groups California with New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. It is the latest legal effort from a coalition of Democratic-run states aimed at pushing back at what liberals see as overreach by the Trump presidency.
France 24
6 hours ago
- France 24
Academics warn Columbia University deal sets dangerous precedent
Academics from Columbia and beyond have expressed concerns that the deal -- which makes broad-ranging concessions and increases government oversight -- will become the blueprint for how Trump brings other universities to heel. The New York institution was the first to be targeted in Trump's war against elite universities, for what the US president claimed was its failure to tackle anti-Semitism on campus in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests. It was stripped of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding and lost its ability to apply for new research grants. Labs saw vital funding frozen, and dozens of researchers were laid off. But Columbia last week agreed to pay the government $200 million, and an additional $21 million to settle an investigation into anti-Semitism. According to Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, the lack of due process -- with the government slashing funding before carrying out a formal investigation -- left Columbia in an "untenable position." Columbia law professor David Pozen agreed, saying the "manner in which the deal was constructed has been unlawful and coercive from the start" and slamming the agreement as giving "legal form to an extortion scheme." Federal oversight The deal goes beyond addressing anti-Semitism and makes concessions on international student admissions, race and ethnicity considerations in admissions and single-sex spaces on campus, among other issues. Columbia also agreed to appoint an independent monitor to implement the deal, share ethnicity admissions data with the government and crack down on campus protests. Many of the provisions "represent significant incursions onto Columbia's autonomy," said Pozen. "What's happened at Columbia is part of a broader authoritarian attack on civil society," he said, pointing to similar pressures on law firms and media organizations to fall in line. According to the law professor, the deal "signals the emergence of a new regulatory regime in which the Trump administration will periodically and unpredictably shake down other schools and demand concessions from them." In the coming weeks, Pozen said he expected the "administration will put a lot of pressure on Harvard and other schools to follow suit." Harvard University has pushed back against the government, filing a lawsuit in a bid to reverse sweeping funding cuts. But Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, said that "in terms of academic freedom and in terms of democracy, the (Columbia) precedent is devastating." - 'First round' - Education Secretary Linda McMahon said she hoped the Columbia deal would be a "template for other universities around the country." On Wednesday, McMahon announced a deal with Brown University to restore some federal funding and end ongoing investigations after the Ivy League school agreed to end race considerations in admissions and adopt a biological definition of gender. Brown President Christina Paxson admitted "there are other aspects of the agreement that were not part of previous federal reviews of Brown policies" but were "priorities of the federal administration." Harvard is reportedly considering forking out $500 million to settle, according to the New York Times. Others have made smaller concessions to appease the government, with Trump's alma mater the University of Pennsylvania banning transgender women from competing in women's sports, and the University of Virginia's head resigning after scrutiny over its diversity programs. Brendan Cantwell, a professor at Michigan State University who researches the history and governance of higher education, said government interference in universities "has not happened at scale like this, probably ever in American history." While some university staff see striking an agreement as the quickest way to reopen the federal funding spigot, Cantwell warned that concessions such as sharing ethnicity data from admissions could be "weaponized" and provide fodder for future probes. Levitsky agreed, saying: "Extortionists don't stop at the first concession. Extortionists come back for more." "There's a very high likelihood that this is just the first round," he said. Pozen noted that it will be harder for "major research universities to hold the line" compared to smaller colleges which are less reliant on federal funding. But Levitsky still urged Harvard to stand its ground and "fight back," including in the courts. "Fighting an authoritarian regime is costly, but that's what we have to do," he said. "This is an unprecedented assault, and universities need to work together."
