Rubio teases US sanctions on leading Brazil judge
Asked at a congressional hearing if President Donald Trump's administration was considering sanctions on Moraes, Rubio said: "That is under review now, and it's a great possibility that will happen."
Moraes has been at odds with Musk, the world's richest person and close advisor of Trump, by temporarily blocking his X social media platform until it complied with the judge's orders to suspend accounts.
Moraes said he was acting to protect democracy by targeting pervasive disinformation in Brazil, where Bolsonaro's supporters in 2023 stormed the presidential palace, Congress and Supreme Court as they claimed the election was stolen from him.
The attack had striking similarities to the January 2021 riot at the US Capitol by supporters of Trump, a close ally of Bolsonaro.
Moraes more recently ordered a suspension of Rumble, a video-sharing platform popular with conservative and far-right voices, over its refusal to block the account of a user based in the United States who was wanted for spreading disinformation.
The State Department under Rubio criticized the judge's order as violating democratic values, leading Brazil to accuse the United States of politicizing a court decision.
Rubio was asked if the United States could target Moraes under the Magnitsky Act, which freezes US-based assets and bars travel to the country for foreign officials accused of human rights abuses or corruption.
The 2012 law is named after Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax lawyer who died in prison after exposing corruption.
sct/aha
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
10 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
EU-US Trade Agreement Now Hinges Mostly on Trump's Verdict
After months of intensive talks and shuttle diplomacy, a trade agreement between the European Union and the US now rests mostly on Donald Trump. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will travel to Scotland to meet the US president on Sunday, as the two sides aim to conclude a deal ahead of Friday's deadline, at which point 30% tariffs on the bloc's exports to the US are otherwise due to kick in.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement the administration looked forward to "being vindicated on appeal.' New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the lawsuit before Sorokin, said in a statement he was 'thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.' "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' he added. "The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.' Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, saying it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' Sorokin said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work. 'That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes,' the judge wrote. 'In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic.' Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said last week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. 'These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment,' Jackson, the White House spokeswoman, said in her statement. ____ Associated Press reporter Mark Sherman in Washington contributed.
Bloomberg
40 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Odd Lots: How a Trade War With China Could Become a Hot War
Tension between the US and China has been building for some time. But so far this has been limited to issues of trade. The US has imposed tariffs on China. It's imposed restrictions on technology exports. In turn, China has imposed some of its own tariffs, and also limited the export of things like rare earth metals. But historically speaking, many hot wars have their roots in some kind of trade-related tensions between nations. So the risk exists that a trade war one day becomes a hot war. So how does this happen, and how can it be avoided? On this episode, we speak with Dale Copeland, a professor of international relations at the University of Virginia. He discusses his theories of trade, and we discuss his most recent book, "A World Safe for Commerce: American Foreign Policy From the Revolution to the Rise of China," which specifically discusses the prospect for an outright US-China confrontation.
