Brazil Supreme Court orders house arrest for Trump ally Bolsonaro
Bolsonaro is facing legal repercussions for allegedly staging a coup to upend his 2022 election loss to now-President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
Justice Alexandre de Moraes accused Bolsonaro, who is an ally of President Trump, of using the social media accounts of his three sons to attack the country's Supreme Federal Court, violating court conditions.
'The covert participation of Jair Messias Bolsonaro, preparing pre-fabricated material for demonstrations and social media, clearly showed that he maintained the illegal conduct of trying to coerce the Supreme Federal Court and obstruct justice, in blatant disrespect for previously imposed precautionary measures,' Moraes wrote, according to People's Dispatch.
Over the weekend, the embattled former leader joined demonstrations across Brazil via telephone. His lawyers argued that the words he used did not reference the court or violate standing conditions.
They said he told protestors, 'good afternoon, Copacabana, good afternoon my Brazil, a hug to everyone, this is for our freedom,' according to The Associated Press.
The State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs backed Bolsonaro in a post on social platform X, condemning Moraes newest order.
'Putting even more restrictions on Jair Bolsonaro's ability to defend himself in public is not a public service. Let Bolsonaro speak!' the bureau wrote.
Their statement follows Trump's decision to impose a 50 percent tariff on Brazil and sanctioning of Moraes last week, after the president called the trial a ' witch hunt.'
Despite rebukes from the Trump administration, the Brazilian justice has pressed ahead.
In his opinion Monday, Moraes alleged Bolsonaro used social media and contacted other defendants despite outlined restrictions writing that 'harsher measures' were needed to dial back the former president.
'As with any precautionary measure imposed by the judiciary, restrictions on the use of social media cannot be circumvented by illicit schemes that, through 'digital militias,' political supporters, or other defendants, continue to propagate the same unlawful act,' the judge wrote.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
12 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
The Right-Wing Movement Taking Over Public Schools
Across the United States, more parents are growing concerned as they witness a narrow religious ideology gaining influence over their children's public schools. While some argue that inclusive school curricula are threatening their religious freedom, many others are worried that one belief system is being imposed — dictating not only which books are available in classrooms but who gets to be represented in the school experience. The battle over books, especially those centering LGBTQ+ lives and diverse identities, has become a larger conflict about who controls the definition of American childhood and which values shape that narrative. 'The question emerging in the law right now is: Which parents have rights?' Jessica Mason Pieklo, Senior Vice President and Executive Editor of Rewire News Group, told HuffPost. 'We're seeing the conservative legal movement rally around a narrow vision of parental identity, control, and rights, one that doesn't reflect or include all families.' Education, once a shared public good, is increasingly becoming a battleground. And at the center of it is a Supreme Court case that could have far-reaching consequences: Mahmoud v. Taylor, which challenged the inclusion of LGBTQ+ books in a Maryland school district. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court blocked a Maryland school district's LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum, ruling it posed a 'very real threat' to the religious beliefs of some parents and supporting their right to opt their children out of such instruction. While the ruling doesn't impose a nationwide ban, it opens the door for local challenges that can limit educators' ability to provide diverse and inclusive education. For parents, this means the fight is about whose voices are heard in their communities. 'This isn't a book ban case,' explains Kelly Jensen, award-winning author and editor at Book Riot. 'It's a case about education and religious rights. None of the books are being banned or pulled from curricula. The real issue is the chilling effect.' Teachers, already working under immense pressure, may now think twice before including LGBTQ+ books in classrooms, even if those books are age-appropriate and affirming. 'The silent erasure of books, disappearing from shelves without formal challenges, is as insidious as outright bans,' Jensen warns. The ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor didn't change the law outright, but it signaled a cultural shift. One where certain religious beliefs are being elevated above others. The uproar over inclusive books in schools isn't a spontaneous, grassroots movement; it's a carefully coordinated effort. 'These book bans are astroturfed,' Pieklo said. 'They don't bubble up organically in a community because there's overwhelming concern that some inappropriate material has been placed there. These are part of a larger advocacy campaign.' Despite the noise, most families support inclusive curricula and occupy a middle ground, favoring opt-out options for personal or religious objections without imposing blanket bans that restrict access for everyone else. According to Pieklo, these efforts to flood schools with opt-outs are part of a broader conservative legal strategy aimed at undermining public education and controlling what students learn, particularly around race, gender, and history. 'This isn't about free speech or parental choice,' she said. 'It's about using the power of the law to try and direct outcomes.' And those outcomes are already changing. The 11th Circuit Court recently upheld a Florida law that prevents teachers from using students' preferred pronouns, mandating that they refer to students only by their sex assigned at birth. The court even ruled that misgendering students is protected speech. The religious justification being used in these cases isn't general, it's specific. 'The ruling essentially says religion is more important than your identity, and not just any religion, but specific types of religious interpretations,' Pieklo explains. In oral arguments for Mahmoud, conservative justices grossly distorted the nature of inclusive books. Justice Neil Gorsuch even described Pride Puppy, a board book about a child attending a Pride parade, as 'a bondage manual for kindergartners.' For many families, the cultural and legal battles over school curricula aren't abstract; they're deeply personal. 'My kids are older now,' Pieklo said, 'but it is very important for me and my family that our children have access to, not just exposure, but access to, books, information, resources, materials that explain not just the world around them but a world they may or may not feel 100% a part of. That helps them understand and navigate shifting understandings of identity.' That sense of wanting children to see and understand the world in its full complexity is shared by other parents across the country. Stephanie, a mother from North Carolina, echoes the importance of broad exposure: 'I'm a Christian and I want my kids to learn about the world as it is, not just through the lens of our faith.' Katie, a public school teacher and parent, said she's horrified by efforts to limit what kids can learn. 'I want my kids to learn as much about the world as they can, and I know I can't teach them everything. I trust that they can handle hearing viewpoints that differ from their own.' That trust in students' ability to think critically is matched by a strong belief in the power of representation. Mindi, a former teacher, reflects on how she would approach things if she were still in the classroom. 'I would have integrated books with secondary characters who identify as LGBTQ — not for 'indoctrination,' but to support my students with other identities. No book bans, ever.' For some, like Denise, a mother in Pennsylvania, the issue goes even deeper — into questions of visibility and belonging. 'I think it's disgusting that LGBTQ+ is being erased from our children's education,' she said. 'These are real people with real and valid ways to love. Taking it out of schools means my kids will always think it's taboo to love who they love.' "We All Lose Something" Underlying all of these perspectives is a shared concern about whose values are shaping what's taught, and whose voices are being silenced. 'When one religious ideology dictates what can be taught, read, or affirmed in public schools, we all lose something,' Pieklo notes. As public schools face funding cuts and increasing pressure, decisions like Mahmoud v. Taylor hand a louder platform to a narrow, often extreme religious agenda that can then shape what every child is allowed to learn, regardless of their own parents' wishes. Though these rulings claim to protect parental rights, some parents feel they frequently silence and disenfranchise those who want their children to see themselves reflected in their education and to understand the rich diversity of the world around them. Megan, a mother of children in public schools, puts it even more bluntly: 'Religion does not belong in schools. I do not enforce or force my beliefs on other people's children. And I'm incredibly not okay with one religion being forced on mine in a 'free' country.' The deeper issue, some parents argue, is the widening gap between well-funded private religious schools and under-resourced public ones. Jensen warns that unless communities push back, this divide will only deepen: 'This ruling might fuel the expansion of voucher programs, pushing public funds toward private religious education,' she said. 'It divides the 'haves' from the 'have-nots.' And it hurts public schools that already struggle for funding.' Megan echoes that concern, pointing to the strain on her children's school, where the teachers' union has had to fight for basics like smaller class sizes and fair pay. 'They deserve help — not funding cuts and more pressure on an already struggling system.'
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Back in your lane, bureaucrats: ‘Endangerment' rollback restores sense to EPA
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, climate change wasn't on anyone's mind. Yet under an Obama-era decision known as the 'Endangerment Finding,' the Environmental Protection Agency has claimed authority under the act to micromanage large parts of the American economy in the name of combating global warming. President Donald Trump's proposal to reverse the finding returns the Clean Air Act to its original purpose, marking the end of a failed effort to control the climate through executive fiat. The Endangerment Finding stemmed from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required the EPA to determine whether carbon dioxide qualified as a dangerous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts warned that the decision 'ignores the complexities' of addressing global warming through the statute — but suggested its effects 'may be more symbolic than anything else.' He couldn't have been more wrong. In his first year in office, President Barack Obama sought to push a bipartisan climate bill through Congress — but when lawmakers failed to act on his terms, he turned to executive authority. In 2009, Obama's EPA responded to the high court's decision and declared that six greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare — and therefore required regulation. Unfortunately, the structure of the Clean Air Act is not conducive to regulating CO2, because it's designed to regulate industry. Yet CO2 is not just emitted by factories and cars but by every human, frog, parakeet and muskrat, among other animals. The act required federal permits for any source that emitted more than 100 tons per year of an air pollutant. By this measure, some families would need permits just to maintain their households under the Endangerment Finding. Realizing that the law could sweep up hundreds of thousands of stores, apartments, hotels and other small establishments, the agency said it would regulate only sites emitting more than 100,000 tons of CO2 — a number it picked out of thin air. The EPA's attempts to use the act to regulate emissions unleashed endless litigation. In 2014, the Supreme Court overturned the 100,000-ton permit standard, which two justices called 'patently unreasonable.' In 2022, the Supreme Court said that the EPA's mandate to shut down a substantial part of the nation's coal-fired power plants and substitute them with gas and renewables also couldn't be squared with the act. One sticking point was that the Clean Air Act focused on regulating emissions through technological additions to cars and factories, such as smokestack scrubbers. But unlike other pollutants, there's no easy way to capture greenhouse gases: If you burn fossil fuels, the CO2 must go somewhere, and that generally means into the atmosphere. The only way to control most greenhouse gases is to mandate less use of fossil-fuel-derived energy. Such mandates were never the purpose or intention of the Clean Air Act. Absurd actions resulted. Cars and trucks are some of the main emitters of CO2, and they were the focus of the EPA's original finding. But no technologies exist to eliminate CO2 from gas-powered vehicles, so the EPA simply imposed stricter gas-mileage standards — even though Congress had already established a separate Transportation Department program to regulate fuel economy. The Biden administration went further, issuing rules under the finding that would require about two-thirds of new cars and trucks to be electric by 2032, an attempt to overhaul the entire American automobile fleet. The estimated costs surpassed $1 trillion, making them among the most expensive regulatory actions in history. And because the government also offered separate subsidies for electric vehicle purchases, the regulations stood to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit — again, without any congressional approval. These regulatory contortions reveal the folly of using questionable statutory language, rather than clear congressional action, to make major decisions that reshape American society. Those who view climate change as an existential threat have a duty to persuade the public of that claim. If addressing climate change truly requires making sweeping changes to how we live, then advocates must build a broad-based coalition to pass laws mandating those changes — not bypass the democratic process through executive fiat. Trump's proposal to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding, detailed in over 300 pages by the EPA last week, will put a stop to regulations that swelled the deficit, raised prices and hurt consumers. It will also restore Congress' original understanding of the Clean Air Act, stop a flood of ineffective executive mandates — and make overreaching bureaucrats get back in their lane. Judge Glock is the director of research and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Adapted from City Journal.
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
Why redistricting is so important, in 3 charts
Texas Republicans' move to redraw their congressional map mid-decade and Democrats' retaliatory redistricting efforts have captured national attention for a very simple reason: How House districts are drawn can shape American politics for years. Gerrymandering generally reduces the number of competitive races, and it can lock in nearly immovable advantages for one party or another. Under the new map proposed in Texas, no seat's presidential vote would have been decided by single digits in 2024, and Republicans would have a path to pad their narrow congressional majority in the 2026 midterm elections. This means more people could reside in congressional districts under solid control of one party. NBC News analyzed how the question of who draws the maps — and how they do it — can shape elections for years afterward. The difference between safe seats and competitive districts Who draws district lines can make the difference between contested general elections in a state in November and elections that are barely more than formalities. NBC News analyzed every House race in the country from 2012 to 2020, the last full 10-year redistricting cycle, based on how each district was drawn. In states where state legislators drew the maps, single-digit races (elections in which the winners won by less than 10 percentage points) were rarest. Only 10.7% of House races fell into that competitive category. There are plenty of reasons that don't involve gerrymandering. For one thing, voters of both parties have increasingly clustered in recent years, leaving fewer places around the country that are politically divided. Still, gerrymandering does play a significant role. When commissions or state or federal courts drew the lines last decade, the rate of competitive elections jumped, though safe seats are still overwhelmingly likely. Competitive elections were especially prevalent in states with court-drawn districts: 18.1% of races in those states had single-digit margins from 2012 through 2020. A look at Pennsylvania, whose legislative-drawn map was thrown out and replaced in 2018 by the state Supreme Court, illustrates the dramatic change that can come based on who draws congressional lines. The same state with the same voters living in the same places suddenly had many more competitive elections. From 2012 through 2016, just three of Pennsylvania's 54 House general elections under the initial map had single-digit margins. After the state Supreme Court threw out the map and imposed a new one, the number of battleground races bumped up. Eight of 36 House races had single-digit margins in 2018 and 2020. Meanwhile, ahead of the 2026 midterms, The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter rates 40 House districts as toss-ups or slightly leaning toward one party. More than half (23) of those 40 competitive districts are in states where commissions or courts drew the maps. How a state's partisanship compares with whom it sends to Congress The power of the redistricting process can bend a state's representation in Congress away from its overall partisanship, with wide differences between the statewide vote in some states and the makeup of their House delegations. Take Illinois, for example, where Donald Trump got 44% of the vote in 2024. Republicans hold only three of the state's 17 seats in Congress, or 18%. (NBC News is looking at presidential data instead of House data here because some races are uncontested.) And even though Trump got 38% of the vote in California last year, Republicans hold only 17% — that's nine seats — of the state's 52 congressional districts. On the other side of the ledger, Trump got 58% support in South Carolina last year, and 86% of the state's House delegation is Republican. In North Carolina, 51% voted for Trump last year, and Republicans have 71% of the delegation. The comparison between House seats and presidential election performance isn't perfect. But it demonstrates that how district lines are drawn can generate different results from what statewide results might suggest. Right in the middle of the chart is Virginia. Its 11 congressional districts split 6-5 for Democrats, meaning Republicans hold nearly 46% of the state's seats in Congress, and Trump won 46% of the vote in Virginia last year. Also, just because a state's maps favor one party compared with the statewide results after one election doesn't mean the redistricting process was biased. Tightly divided Pennsylvania has seven Democrats and 10 Republicans in Congress, and three GOP-held districts are rated as toss-up or lean-Republican races in 2026, according to the Cook Political Report. Each state charts its own course Since each state is responsible for handling its own redistricting, the process is different depending on where you look, giving immense power to different institutions state by state. In 27 states, legislatures approved the maps. In seven, independent commissions approved them, seven had court-approved maps, two had political commissions, and one state's maps were approved by a backup commission, according to data from Loyola Law School. (The six states that elect only one person to the House don't draw new congressional maps.) Loyola Law School's " All About Redistricting" website defines politician commissions as panels elected officials can serve on as members. The website defines backup commissions as backup procedures if legislatures can't agree on new lines.
