Bolsonaro to wear ankle monitor, cut foreign contacts
Washington responded by hitting Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes and unspecified other allies with visa restrictions.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Moraes' court orders a "political witch hunt" that had prompted him to make immediate visa revocations for "Moraes and his allies on the court, as well as their immediate family members."
The Supreme Court did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Trump has already tried to use pressure to help Bolsonaro by announcing a 50% tariff on goods from Latin America's No 1 economy.
Bolsonaro told Reuters that he believed the court orders were a reaction to Trump's criticism of his trial before the Supreme Court for trying to overturn the last election.
The court's crackdown on Bolsonaro added to evidence that Trump's tactics are backfiring in Brazil, compounding trouble for his ideological ally and rallying public support behind a defiant leftist government.
Bolsonaro was banned from contacting foreign officials, using social media or approaching embassies, according to the decision issued by Moraes, who cited a "concrete possibility" of him fleeing the country. His home was raided by federal police and he had an ankle monitor placed on him.
In an interview with Reuters at his party's headquarters on Friday, Bolsonaro called Moraes a "dictator" and described the latest court orders as acts of "cowardice."
"I feel supreme humiliation," he said, when asked how he felt about wearing the ankle monitor. "I am 70 years old, I was president of the republic for four years."
Bolsonaro denied any plans to leave the country, but said he would meet with Trump if he could get access to his passport, which police seized last year. He also said he had sought out the top US diplomat in Brazil to discuss Trump's tariff threat.
Asked about Bolsonaro's comments to Reuters, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said on Friday, citing previous comments from Trump, "Bolsonaro and his supporters are under attack from a weaponized court system."
In his decision, Moraes said the restrictions against Bolsonaro were due to accusations that the former president was making efforts to get the "head of state of a foreign nation" to interfere in Brazilian courts, which the judge cast as an attack on national sovereignty.
Bolsonaro is on trial before Brazil's Supreme Court on charges of plotting a coup to stop President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking office in January 2023.
Trump has in recent weeks pressed Brazil to stop the legal case against Bolsonaro, saying that his ally was the victim of a "witch hunt". The US president said last week he would impose a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods from August 1, in a letter that opened with criticism of the Bolsonaro trial.
Trump on Thursday shared on Truth Social a letter he sent to Bolsonaro. "I have seen the terrible treatment you are receiving at the hands of an unjust system turned against you. This trial should end immediately!" he wrote.
Moraes wrote in his decision that the higher tariffs threatened by Trump were aimed at creating a serious economic crisis in Brazil to interfere in the country's judicial system.
Bolsonaro was also prohibited from contacting key allies including his son Eduardo Bolsonaro, a Brazilian congressman who has been working in Washington to drum up support his father.
Bolsonaro told Reuters he had been talking to his son almost daily, denying any concerted US lobbying effort on his behalf. He said he expected his son to seek US citizenship to avoid returning to Brazil.
A five-judge panel of Supreme Court judges reviewed and upheld Moraes' decision on Friday afternoon.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
26 minutes ago
- Scoop
NZ And Allies Condemn 'Inhumane', 'Horrifying' Killings In Gaza And 'Drip Feeding' Of Aid
New Zealand has joined 24 other countries in calling for an end to the war in Gaza, and criticising what they call the inhumane killing of Palestinians. The Prime Minister said New Zealand was part of a joint statement calling on Israel to immediately end its war in Gaza because it's now an absolute "catastrophe". Christopher Luxon said Israel was going too far, adding the Israeli food program was being "dribbled out". The countries - including Britain, France, Canada and Australia - also condemned the Israeli government's aid delivery model in Gaza as "dangerous". "We condemn the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food" They said it was "horrifying" that more than 800 civilians had been killed while seeking aid, the majority at food distribution sites run by a US- and Israeli-backed foundation. "We call on the Israeli government to immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid and to urgently enable the UN and humanitarian NGOs to do their life saving work safely and effectively," it said. "Proposals to remove the Palestinian population into a 'humanitarian city' are completely unacceptable. Permanent forced displacement is a violation of international humanitarian law." The statement said the countries were "prepared to take further action" to support an immediate ceasefire. Reuters reported Israel's foreign ministry said the statement was "disconnected from reality" and it would send the wrong message to Hamas. "The statement fails to focus the pressure on Hamas and fails to recognise Hamas's role and responsibility for the situation," the Israeli statement said. Foreign affairs minister Winston Peters told Morning Report, New Zealand had chosen to be part of the statement as a way to have its voice heard on the "dire" humanitarian situation in Gaza. "The tipping point was some time ago... it's gotten to the stage where we've just lost our patience..." Peters said he wanted to see what the response to the condemnation was. "The conflict in the Middle East goes on and on... It's gone from a situation where it was excusable, due to the October 7 conflict, to inexcusable as innocent people are being swept into it," he said. "I do think there has to be change. It must happen now." Luxon wanted the UN and other NGOs to be let in to ensure there was "unfettered access" to humanitarian assistance, "as there should be". He also said the statement had raised the E1 settlement programme, "which essentially splits the occupied territories into two." Luxon said he didn't think that would set up conditions for what needs to happen, "which is a two state solution". "That's why you've also seen us go very hard against extremist ministers calling for settlements which we think are illegal under international law. "The ICJ made a pretty clear ruling, a provisional ruling, and we expect Israel to be bound and compliant with that." Luxon said New Zealand can have more impact with its statements and words by joining with like minded friends, to "put more volume to those statements." "We're calling it out and saying it's got to stop. "It's gone to a new depth, and it's unacceptable. "This has gone too far. This is an absolute catastrophe now." Luxon said there could be further action if Israel doesn't take note, but wouldn't define what that is. The statement also called for Hamas to release hostages "unconditionally and immediately" Luxon said. Labour's foreign affairs spokesperson Peeni Henare said the statement was long overdue, but wanted to see what else the government could do. "It's one thing to be clear on the rhetoric with respect to the delivery of aid and food, but actually let's call this out for what it is." University of Otago Professor Robert Patman told Midday Report it was a "big deal" because most of the countries who signed on "constitute key members of what might be called 'the West', countries which most of whom are liberal democracies." He said the statement He acknowledged the United States and Germany weren't on the list. But Patman said it was quite clear the majority of liberal democracies, many of whom he said had remained "disgracefully quiet during much of this tragedy that's unfolded in Gaza since the Hamas attack", were now indicating "enough is enough". Patman pointed out the statement also hinted at further action if the Israeli government doesn't respond. He said Benjamin Netanyahu had made no secret he opposed a two-state solution, but "virtually all countries" who signed the statement are "adamant" there should be a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As to whether the United States would respond to the statement, Patman said he expected the Trump administration to criticise it. But he said Trump would have to reconcile that 25 countries is a substantial number of entities, and the United States risked isolating themselves in its support for Israel. "That is having consequences for the United States' global reputation." The war in Gaza was triggered when Hamas-led militants attacked Israel on 7 October, 2023, killing 1200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli tallies. Israel's subsequent air and ground war in Gaza has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, according to its Hamas-run health ministry, while displacing almost the entire population of more than 2 million and spreading a hunger crisis.
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Harvard slams Trump administration funding cuts in pivotal court hearing
Steven P. Lehotsky, who argued for Harvard, called the Government's actions a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment, touching a 'constitutional third rail' that threatened the academic freedom of private universities. The attorney for the Government cast the case as a fight over billions of dollars. 'Harvard is here because it wants the money,' said Michael Velchik, a Justice Department lawyer. But the Government can choke the flow of taxpayer dollars to institutions that show a 'deliberate indifference to anti-Semitism', he said. President Donald Trump reacted to the hearing on Monday afternoon with a post on social media about the judge. 'She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling.' He called Harvard 'anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America'. 'How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN. Also, the Government will stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard,' he said. Spokespeople for Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday about the President's remarks. Peter McDonough, vice-president and general counsel at the American Council on Education, said all of higher education could be impacted by the case. 'And I don't think it is too dramatic to say that Americans and the constitutional protections that they value are in court,' he said. 'Freedom of speech is on trial, due process is on trial,' he said, with the executive branch of the Government essentially charged with having violated those rights. The administration has engaged in intense efforts to force changes in higher education, which it has said has been captured by leftist ideology and has not done enough to combat antisemitism in the wake of protests at some colleges over the Israel-Gaza war. Its biggest target has been Harvard. The administration announced earlier this year that it would review nearly US$9 billion ($15b) in federal funding to the school and its affiliates, including local hospitals whose physicians teach at Harvard Medical School. In April, a letter from a federal anti-Semitism task force, alluding to civil rights law, demanded that the university upend its governance, hiring, student discipline and admissions, and submit to years-long federal oversight over multiple aspects of its operations. Harvard has been the Trump administration's biggest target. Photo / Allison Robbert, The Washington Post Harvard refused to comply. Hours later, the administration announced it would freeze more than US$2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard. It has also launched multiple investigations into the Ivy League institution's operations, threatened to revoke the school's tax-exempt status and moved to block its ability to enrol international students. Harvard filed a lawsuit challenging the funding cuts, and later filed another to counter the administration's effort to block international students and scholars from Harvard. In the latter case, Burroughs twice ruled swiftly in Harvard's favour, allowing the university to continue welcoming non-US students while the case proceeds. On Monday, Harvard's lawyers argued that the Government violated the school's First Amendment rights and ignored the requirements of federal civil rights law, and that its actions were unlawfully arbitrary and capricious. Any claim that Harvard is simply interested in getting money back is 'just false', Lehotsky said. 'We're here for our constitutional rights.' He called the Government's actions an end-run around Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and compared it to the scene in Alice in Wonderland in which the queen orders that the sentence comes first then the verdict afterwards, with the funding freeze preceding the investigation required by statute. 'The Government now says Title VI is totally irrelevant,' he said, arguing it had cooked up a post hoc rationale. Harvard had asked the judge to grant a summary judgment, set aside the funding freezes and terminations, and block any similar actions as soon as possible before September 3, after which the university believes the Government will take the position that restoration of the funds is not possible. Velchik, the Justice Department attorney – himself a Harvard alumnus – defended the Government's decisions to slash the university's funding in response to what he said was its failure to tackle anti-Semitism. 'Harvard does not have a monopoly on the truth,' he said. Those same funds would be 'better spent going to HBCUs or community colleges'. The Government cancelled the grants under an obscure regulation that allows it to terminate funding when they no longer align with agency priorities. 'Harvard should have read the fine print,' Velchik said. Although Burroughs pushed both sides to justify their arguments, she appeared sceptical of the administration's rationale for the cuts. She repeatedly pressed the Government on what process it had followed in deciding to terminate a major portion of Harvard's federal funding. 'This is a big stumbling block for me,' she said, even as she acknowledged the Government had argued some of its points well. ('A Harvard education is paying off for you,' she told Velchik.) Burroughs noted that the Government had apparently slashed Harvard's funding without following any established procedure or even examining the steps Harvard itself had taken to combat anti-Semitism. If the administration can base its decision on reasons connected to protected speech, Burroughs said, the consequences for 'constitutional law are staggering'. At one point, Velchik appeared to grow emotional. He spoke about wanting to go to Harvard since he was a child, then seeing the campus 'besieged by protesters' and hearing about Jewish students wearing baseball caps to hide their kippot, a visible sign of their identity. 'It's sick. Federal taxpayers should not support this,' he said. Burroughs also spoke about the case in unusually personal terms. 'I am both Jewish and American,' she said. Harvard itself has acknowledged anti-Semitism as an issue, she said. But 'what is the connection to cutting off funding to Alzheimer's or cancer research?' she asked. 'One could argue it hurts Americans and Jews.' A complaint by Harvard's chapter of the American Association of University Professors against the administration, filed before the university took action, is being heard concurrently with Harvard's case. In its court filings, the Justice Department urged Burroughs to reject Harvard's request for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a motion in which a party in a civil suit asks a judge to decide a case before it goes to trial. To win a summary judgment, the party filing the motion must show there is no genuine dispute over the central facts of the case and they would prevail on the legal merits if the case were to go to trial. Harvard supporters, with crimson-coloured shirts, signs and hats along with American flag pins, crowded around the main entrance of the John Joseph Moakley federal courthouse on Monday afternoon. About 100 alumni, faculty, staff and students rallied in a joint protest with the Crimson Courage alumni group and supporters of the American Association of University Professors union. 'What the federal administration is doing is basically co-opting American values for their own political ends, and we are determined to say this is not what America is about,' said Evelyn J. Kim, a co-chair of the Crimson Courage communications team and a 1995 Harvard graduate. 'America is about the values that allow for Harvard to exist.' Walter Willett, 80, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, biked to the rally to deliver a speech to the group. In May, US$3.6 million of National Institutes of Health grant money that funded Willett's research on breast cancer and women's and men's health was cut, he said. It is critical to push back against the administration, Willett said. 'In this case, our basic freedom – what we're fighting for – is also at stake.' Harvard has taken numerous steps to address anti-Semitism after protests over the Israel-Gaza war sparked concerns. Photo / Josh Reynolds, The Washington Post The stakes are high – and not just for Harvard. More than a dozen amicus briefs filed in support of Harvard argue the administration is imperilling academic freedom, the autonomy of institutions of higher education and the decades-long research partnership between universities and the federal government. Eighteen former officials who served in past Democratic and Republican administrations noted in a brief that they were aware of no instances in more than 40 years where federal funds had been terminated under Title VI, the provision of civil rights law that Trump officials have in some cases cited in slashing Harvard's grants. The administration received outside support in a brief filed by the attorneys general of 16 states, led by Iowa. 'There are apparently three constant truths in American life: death, taxes, and Harvard University's discrimination against Jews,' it said, citing Harvard's own internal report on anti-Semitism on campus. Harvard has taken numerous steps to address anti-Semitism after protests over the Israel-Gaza war in the 2023-24 academic year sparked concerns from some Jewish and Israeli students, but the administration has repeatedly said the problem persists and must be acted upon forcefully. James McAffrey, 22, a senior and first-generation college student from Oklahoma, co-chairs the Harvard Students for Freedom, a student group that joined the rally on Monday to support the school. He said the administration's actions pose a threat to the nation's wellbeing. 'I think the reality is it's time for us to root out the evils of anti-Americanism in the Trump administration,' he said.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
More turns in Trump's handling of Epstein case
United State correspondent Todd Zwillich spoke to Melissa Chan-Green about a number of developments concerning Donald Trump's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, as well as the number of people reported missing after the Texas floods droppping significantly. To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
