Trump's tariff threat pushes Lula's popularity and worsens legal troubles for Brazil's ex-leader
Last week, Trump sent a letter to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva threatening a 50% import tax and directly linking the decision to Bolsonaro's trial, which he called a "witch hunt."
"This trial should end immediately!" Trump wrote Thursday evening in a second letter, this one addressed to Bolsonaro. He added that he had "strongly voiced" his disapproval through his tariff policy.
Rather than backing down, Brazil's Supreme Court escalated the case, worsening Bolsonaro's legal troubles. On Friday morning, federal police raided Bolsonaro's home and political office. The former president was ordered to wear an ankle monitor, banned from using social media, and hit with other restrictions.
Meanwhile, President Lula -- who was facing higher unpopularity, growing opposition in Congress and increasing risks to his likely reelection bid -- seems to have gained politically from the situation.
Now the 79-year-old leftist Lula, in office for the third non-consecutive term of his long political career, is seeing renewed acceptance, congressional support against Trump and pleas to run one last time to defend Brazil's sovereignty.
Back in the game
Lula has appeared more energized in public since Trump's announcement. At a national students assembly Thursday, he wore a blue cap reading "Sovereign Brazil Unites Us" -- a contrast to MAGA's red cap.
"A gringo will not give orders to this president," he told the crowd, and called the tariff hike "unacceptable blackmail."
The impact on Lula is not a first. Trump's actions targeting other countries have boosted ideological rivals in Canada and Australia instead of strengthening his allies at a local level.
Private pollster Atlas said Tuesday that Lula's unpopularity had reversed course after his spat with Trump. Lula's job approval went from at 47.3% in June to 49.7% since the tariffs battle began. The poll of more than 2,800 people was conducted July 11-13, with a margin of error of 2 percentage points. The study also said 62.2% of Brazilians think the higher tariffs are unjustified while 36.8% agree with the measure.
Even Bolsonaro's former vice president, Sen. Hamilton Mourao, criticized Trump's move as undue interference in Brazil's politics, though he said he agreed the trial against the far-right leader is biased against him.
Social media analytics firm Palver analyzed 20,000 messages about Trump on WhatsApp, Brazil's most widely used communication platform, a day after Trump's announcement. Its analysis said right-wing users dominated viral content, but spontaneous conversations leaned left, mocking Bolsonaro as submissive and defending Brazil's sovereignty.
"Trump has put Lula back in the game," said Thomas Traumann, an independent political consultant and former spokesman for the Brazilian presidency who only weeks ago argued that Lula had lost his front-runner status in the presidential race as he struggled to deliver on his promises on the economy.
"Trump handed it to Lula on a silver platter," Traumann said.
Business leaders who until recently sided with Bolsonaro are having to court Lula to negotiate with Trump. Agribusiness, Brazil's largest economic sector and a traditional right-wing stronghold, united to criticize the U.S. president's move. Industry groups were quick to denounce the tariffs as politically motivated and lacking any commercial justification.
National outrage
"In general, with the major exception of a more radical conservative wing, (Trump's move) generated national outrage for violating Brazil's sovereignty," lawmaker Arnaldo Jardim, a member of the congressional agricultural caucus, told The Associated Press.
Jardim, who pushed for the approval of a reciprocity bill that could be used by Lula if there's no agreement until the Aug. 1 deadline, hardly sides with the president.
"Even among sectors that initially thought this could benefit Bolsonaro, many had to reconsider their positions," he said.
Top congressional leaders who recently helped nix a Lula decree to raise a transactions tax were moving toward a head-on collision with him. After Trump's announcement, they signed a joint statement agreeing with Lula's promise to use the reciprocity law against the U.S.
In another change, Brazil's Congress decided to start moving on Lula's plan to give an income tax break to millions of poorer Brazilians. Many politicians said that such initiative was dead after Lula became the first president in three decades to have a decree annulled by lawmakers.
Bolsonaro remains on trial
At the Supreme Court, Bolsonaro is only getting deeper into trouble as his trial continues.
Earlier this week, Brazil's chief prosecutor called for a guilty verdict, accusing the former president of leading an armed criminal organization, attempting to stage a coup and attempting violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, among other charges.
The defense will next likely present its case in the coming weeks, after which the panel of Supreme Court justices in the trial will vote on whether to convict or acquit him.
The former president also suffered more consequences -- the court's latest restrictions on Bolsonaro, including the ankle monitor, are part of a second investigation against one of his sons, Eduardo Bolsonaro, a Brazilian lawmaker who currently lives in the United States and is known for his close ties to Trump. He has been under scrutiny for allegedly working with U.S. authorities to impose sanctions against Brazilian officials.
Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversees criminal cases against Bolsonaro, said his and his son's actions attempted to pressure the Brazilian judiciary by involving the U.S.
The court's decision cited both Trump's letter to Lula and several social media posts by the Bolsonaros in support of sanctions against Brazilian officials and speaking favorably about tariffs.
"A sovereign country like Brazil will always know how to defend its democracy and sovereignty," de Moraes said. "The judiciary will not allow any attempt to subject the functioning of the Supreme Court to the scrutiny of another state through hostile acts."
Jair Bolsonaro told journalists in Brasilia, the country's capital, that the ankle monitoring was a "supreme humiliation."
"I never thought about leaving Brazil, I never thought about going to an embassy, but the precautionary measures are because of that," the former president said.
In a statement, Eduardo Bolsonaro accused de Moraes of trying to criminalize Trump and the U.S. government.
"Since he has no power over them, he decided to make my father a hostage," the younger Bolsonaro said of the judge.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NHK
2 hours ago
- NHK
Japan's top negotiator for US tariff talks leaves for Washington
Japan's top negotiator for trade talks with the United States has left for Washington as the US is poised to impose a 25-percent tariff on imports from Japan starting August 1. Economic Revitalization Minister Akazawa Ryosei departed from Tokyo's Haneda Airport on Monday morning. It is his eighth trip to the US capital for tariff negotiations. Speaking to reporters before his departure, Akazawa said that negotiations would not be easy as both Japan and the US need to protect their national interests. He said he wants to hold sincere and robust discussions to find common ground between the two sides. Arrangements are under way for a meeting with US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Monday or later, local time. Akazawa is also seeking meetings with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Japanese government officials say that Washington is now reviewing Tokyo's proposal to make massive investments and import more American goods to reduce the US trade deficit with Japan. Akazawa says he wants to confirm how the US side is proceeding with its review. Akazawa aims to reach an agreement that can benefit both countries as the August 1 deadline for what US President Donald Trump calls "reciprocal" tariffs approaches.
Japan Times
7 hours ago
- Japan Times
Akazawa jets to Washington for tariff talks after historic election
Japan's chief tariff negotiator flew to Washington on Monday for an eighth round of trade talks, just a day after the ruling coalition suffered a dramatic defeat in an Upper House election and less than two weeks ahead of a key tariff deadline. While the political landscape was upended by Sunday's vote, Ryosei Akazawa stuck to the script and offered no indication that anything has changed in terms of Japan's stance, or that the United States is willing to back down in its demands. 'While protecting our national interests, I want to quickly find common ground where both Japan and the United States can agree,' he told reporters at Haneda Airport on Monday morning before his departure. The U.S. is set to impose a 25% "reciprocal" tariff on most goods from Japan on Aug. 1 — up from the current 10% — unless a deal is struck. On multiple occasions in recent weeks, U.S. President Donald Trump has openly complained about the lack of progress in negotiations with Japan. No tangible results have been achieved after months of talks. Trump has said he might just end negotiations and let the 25% rate go into effect, as outlined in a letter sent to Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba on July 7. Separate sector-specific Trump tariffs are already in effect, including 25% on vehicles and auto parts and 50% on steel and aluminum. The U.S. president has said he will start imposing tariffs on pharmaceutical products as early as the end of July. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was appointed by Trump to lead negotiations with Japan in early April, visited Tokyo and Osaka before Sunday's vote. 'A good deal is more important than a rushed deal, and a mutually beneficial trade agreement between the United States and Japan remains within the realm of possibility,' Bessent wrote in a post on social media platform X after a brief meeting with Ishiba on Friday. "I look forward to continuing formal talks in the future,' he added. The election could change the calculus of negotiations as the Liberal Democratic Party-Komeito coalition, with less than a majority in both houses, is now greatly weakened. The prime minister could step down despite his insistence that he intends to stay on, while the coalition will have to incorporate another party or seek the cooperation of opposition parties on a case-by-case basis to effectively govern. In his first comments since the Sunday's vote, Ishiba shed no light on the implications of the historic loss on tariff talks, but he remained guardedly upbeat and said that he hopes to speak with Trump about the tariffs. "I also plan to talk with President Trump and present a visible outcome as early as possible," Ishiba said.
The Diplomat
9 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Could Thailand's Cash Handout Scheme Have Worked?
One of the consequences of the Pheu Thai party's implosion is that its signature cash handout scheme will go down with it. Granted, the program was already approaching rigor mortis before Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra got herself, her dynasty, and her party (and Thai politics) into a hot mess by running her mouth to a foreign leader. The first tranche was delivered to welfare cardholders and people with disabilities last September, and a second tranche to the elderly in January, but the bulk of the funds for most Thais has been scrapped, with Bangkok blaming Trump's tariffs, although more likely because the first two tranches did little to stimulate the economy through consumption, the entire point of the project. (Phase 3 would have given money to 16-20 year olds, and Phase 4 to 21-59 year olds). Personally, I always thought the handout scheme was a good idea, but one unlikely to work given the mechanism, timing, and who was in charge. I don't think it would be a particularly controversial statement to say that Pheu Thai, and especially prime ministers Srettha Thavisin and Paetongtarn Shinawatra, were woeful articulators who couldn't explain why the scheme was necessary and what it intended to achieve. Srettha might have been a competent bureaucrat, but he was an appalling salesman. Likewise, Paetongtarn inspired little trust that she knew what she was doing, let alone in managing an unprecedented redistribution of state money. Recent surveys suggest that most Thais would still prefer the Phase 3 and Phase 4 handouts to proceed, but this is only around the 60 percent mark, which one might have expected to be higher when essentially they're being given money for free. The biggest problem, though, involved the matter of distribution. The purpose of the scheme was essentially a stimulus package to promote consumption in the most immediate and (although never stated) frivolous ways. The government wanted people to spend it on washing machines, clothes, food, household repairs, etc. The sort of consumption you'd do if you won a small sum in the lottery, for instance. This was sensible. The Thai economy had been lagging behind for several years due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and many sectors of the economy (mainly local businesses) needed an injection of capital. Moreover, domestic consumption rates have been worryingly low in Thailand for some time, and there will be an ever bigger need for domestic consumption as the population ages (for several complex reasons). While agnostic on ideas like Universal Basic Income, I am strongly in favor of a national dividend and have been since I first read Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice (1797), which argues that all landowners should pay a ground rent that will be distributed as a dividend to each citizen upon reaching maturity. However, the mechanism for redistribution matters. It makes sense, for instance, that social benefits to the poor or unemployed are delivered in the form of cash or bank transfers (fiat currency, in other words), since, in an ideal world, while most of that money will be spent, a fraction of it will be saved. However, if you have a citizens' dividend scheme solely intended to boost consumption (like Thailand's), it makes less sense to deliver it in the form of hard currency. Firstly, that's because people could simply keep the money in their accounts, rather than spend it. Secondly, one of the obvious problems anyone could see before the scheme was enacted is that people could use the money to pay off debt. This meant the stimulus scheme largely became a transfer of wealth from the state to the banking sector. ('The impact of the handouts and the stimulus was less than we had expected,' central bank governor Sethaput Suthiwartnarueput told Reuters in January. 'The handouts that went out sometimes were used to pay down debt and whatnot, so you didn't see that translation into consumption.') Had the Pheu Thai party asked, I would have suggested they distribute the sums in the form of digital gift cards with relatively short expiration dates and which could only be spent at select shops. This would have required recipients to spend the money on consumption (rather than paying off debt or putting it into savings); it would have forced people to spend the money at specific places (local shops) that the government wanted to support; and it would have compelled people to spend the money relatively quickly (meaning central economists could see some bang for the buck, thus disproving the naysayers). Perhaps most importantly, a gift card would have had a novelty factor. It always seemed reductionist to have had the rather radical idea of transmitting $14 billion from the state to its citizens, yet to have decided that the mechanism by which this will be done is so utterly dull. People checked their phones and saw an extra 10,000 baht appear in their ledger or were simply given cash. In other words, like any other transaction. Ideally, the government should have made this dividend transfer as unlike a normal transaction as possible. Perhaps the government shouldn't have even given everyone the same amount of money! You could have randomly allocated payments of 8,000 baht, 9,000 baht, and 10,000 baht. If you only received 8,000 baht and were a little pissed off, maybe you'd have had more reason to go out that afternoon and splurge it on a purchase. And if you were lucky to get 10,000 baht, then spending 2,000 baht on something you might not have bought previously would have seemed like a free shot. In the end, the digital wallet mechanism was rational and relatively straightforward, as Pheu Thai would surely have been advised, yet sometimes an intuitive idea (giving people some money to spend) needs an unintuitive means of delivery.
