U.S. sanctions Brazil's Supreme Court justice overseeing case against Bolsonaro
De Moraes oversees the criminal case against Bolsonaro, who is accused of masterminding a plot to stay in power despite his 2022 election loss to current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
'De Moraes is responsible for an oppressive campaign of censorship, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions — including against former President Jair Bolsonaro,' U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement.
The Treasury cited the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which targets perpetrators of human rights abuse and corrupt officials, as its authority to issue the sanctions.
The decision orders the freezing of any assets or property De Moraes may have in the U.S.
Brazil's Supreme Court and the presidential palace did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Wednesday's announcement follows the U.S. State Department's announcement of visa restrictions on Brazilian judicial officials, including De Moraes, on July 18.
It also comes after President Trump announced a 50% tariff on Brazilian imported goods that is set to take effect Friday. In a letter announcing the tariff, Trump explicitly linked the import tax to what he called the 'witch hunt' trial of Bolsonaro that is underway in Brazil.
Days later, Bolsonaro was ordered to wear an ankle monitor after being deemed a flight risk.
Bolsonaro's son Eduardo celebrated the Treasury's announcement on X, calling it a 'historic milestone' and a warning that 'abuses of authority now have global consequences.'
Eduardo Bolsonaro relocated to the U.S. in March and is under investigation for allegedly working with U.S. authorities to impose sanctions against Brazilian officials.
Hughes writes for the Associated Press.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
The Warped Idealism of Trump's Trade Policy
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Tomorrow is Donald Trump's deadline to agree to trade deals before he imposes tariffs, and he means it this time. Why are you laughing? (In fact, since saying that yesterday, he's already chickened out with Mexico, putting the 'taco' in, well, TACO.) But the president has already written off hopes of reaching agreements with some allies. Yesterday, Trump announced that he was raising tariffs on many Brazilian goods to 50 percent across the board, as retribution for Brazil's prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally. This morning, Trump wrote on Truth Social that Prime Minister Mark Carney's decision to recognize a Palestinian state 'will make it very hard' to strike a deal with Canada. The president's perpetual caving can make him seem craven and opportunistic, but you can detect a different impulse in his handling of trade policy too: a warped kind of idealism. When Trump began his political career, he said he would put ' America First,' rather than using American power to enforce values overseas. Wars to fight repressive autocrats were foolish ways to burn cash and squander American lives. The promotion of human rights and democracy were soft-headed, bleeding-heart causes. Trump, a man of business, was going to look out for the bottom line without getting tangled up in high-minded crusades. Now that's exactly what he's doing: using trade as a way to make grand statements about values—his own, if not America's. This is troubling on legal, moral, and diplomatic levels. The Constitution specifically delegates the power to levy tariffs to Congress, but legislators have delegated some of that capacity to the president. Trump has invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows him to impose tariffs in response to an 'unusual and extraordinary threat,' on the basis that Congress cannot act quickly enough. This use of the law is, as Conor Friedersdorf and Ilya Somin wrote in The Atlantic in May, absurd. The White House's months of vacillation on its tariff threats since make the idea of any emergency even less credible. Understanding why Trump would be sensitive about Bolsonaro's prosecution, which stems from Bolsonaro's attempt to cling to power after losing the 2022 election, is not difficult—the parallels between the two have been often noted—but that doesn't make it a threat to the United States, much less an 'unusual and extraordinary' one. Likewise, Canadian recognition of a Palestinian state is unwelcome news for Trump's close alliance with Israel, but it poses no obvious security or economic danger to the U.S. A Congress or Supreme Court interested in limiting presidential power could seize on these statements to arrest Trump's trade war, but these are not the legislators or justices we have. Setting aside the legal problems, Trump's statements about Brazil and Canada represent an abandonment of the realpolitik approach he once promised. Even if Carney were to back down on Palestinian statehood, or Brazil to call off Bolsonaro's prosecution, the United States wouldn't see any economic gain. Trump is purely using American economic might to achieve noneconomic goals. Previous presidents have frequently used U.S. economic hegemony to further national goals—or, less charitably, interfered in the domestic affairs of other sovereign nations. But no one needs to accept any nihilistic false equivalences. Trump wrote in a July 9 letter to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva that the case against Bolsonaro was 'an international disgrace' and (naturally) a 'Witch Hunt.' Although the U.S. has taken steps to isolate repressive governments, Trump's attempts to bail out Bolsonaro are nothing of the sort. The U.S. can't with a straight face argue that charging Bolsonaro is improper, and it can't accuse Brazil of convicting him in a kangaroo court, because no trial has yet been held. The U.S. government has also long used its power to bully other countries into taking its side in international disputes, but the swipe at Canada is perplexing. The Trump administration remains the most stalwart ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (notwithstanding some recent tensions), and the U.S. government has long withheld recognition of any Palestinian state as leverage in negotiations. Even so, slapping tariffs on Canada for a symbolic decision such as this seems unlikely to dissuade Carney or do anything beyond further stoking nascent Canadian nationalism. This is not the only way in which Trump's blunt wielding of tariffs is likely to backfire on the United States. Consumers in the U.S. will pay higher prices, and overseas, Jerusalem Demsas warned in April, 'the credibility of the nation's promises, its treaties, its agreements, and even its basic rationality has evaporated in just weeks.' But it's not just trust with foreign countries that the president has betrayed. It's the pact he made with voters. Trump promised voters an 'America First' approach. Instead, they're getting a 'Bolsonaro and Netanyahu First' government. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Virginia Giuffre's family was shocked that Trump described her as 'stolen.' Every scientific empire comes to an end. Hamas wants Gaza to starve. Today's News President Donald Trump's tariffs are set to take effect tomorrow as his administration scrambles to finalize trade deals with key partners. Mexico received a 90-day extension, while other countries, including China and Canada, remain in negotiations. Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, and Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee will visit Gaza tomorrow to inspect aid distribution as the humanitarian crisis worsens in the region. Dispatches Evening Read By Katherine J. Wu For decades, evolutionary biologists pointed to such examples to cast hybridization as hapless—'rare, very unsuccessful, and not an important evolutionary force,' Sandra Knapp, a plant taxonomist at the Natural History Museum in London, told me. But recently, researchers have begun to revise that dour view. With the right blend of genetic material, hybrids can sometimes be fertile and spawn species of their own; they can acquire new abilities that help them succeed in ways their parents never could. Which, as Knapp and her colleagues have found in a new study, appears to be the case for the world's third-most important staple crop: The 8-to-9-million-year-old lineage that begat the modern potato may have arisen from a chance encounter between a flowering plant from a group called Etuberosum and … an ancient tomato. Tomatoes, in other words, can now justifiably be described as the mother of potatoes. More From The Atlantic Take a look. These photos capture moments from the 2025 World Aquatics Championships in Singapore, where more than 2,500 athletes from over 200 nations competed in events spanning six aquatic sports.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Here Is What to Know About Trump's 50% Tariffs on Brazil
The 50 percent tariffs President Trump imposed on Brazil this week are some of the highest he has applied on any country this year as he reshapes a global trading system he deems unfair to the United States. But the United States actually has had a trade surplus with Brazil for over a decade. Instead, Mr. Trump is targeting Brazil largely for political reasons — the prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro, his ally, who is accused of plotting a coup after he lost the last presidential election. Mr. Trump has called the case a 'witch hunt.'' He is also targeting a Brazilian Supreme Court justice he believes is unfairly censoring conservative voices online. Yet the tariffs were softened by hundreds of exceptions, including on some of Brazil's most important exports to the American market, which could make the effect on Brazil's economy less severe. Still, the levies will affect billions of dollars worth of goods and, if they remain in place, inflict pain in both nations. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
Yes, Brett Kavanaugh reads the online discourse about the Supreme Court
Trump's public ire has been directed mostly at district court judges, branding as a 'radical left lunatic' one who blocked aspects of his deportation efforts and another as a 'total disaster' for stymying his efforts to punish Harvard University for allegedly condoning antisemitism. Trump White House adviser Stephen Miller has said the president is beset by 'Communist' judges seizing his power. Kavanaugh's remarks came as several federal judges spoke out in a videoconference Thursday about death threats they'd received and their belief that heated political rhetoric fueled such threats and potential violence. Kavanaugh made no mention of threats to judges, although a man has pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing for attempting to assassinate the justice at his home in 2022. Kavanaugh touted judicial independence as 'the crown jewel of our constitutional democracy,' but did not paint it as acutely endangered in the way the court's liberal justices have suggested in recent months. Kavanaugh also defended the Supreme Court's handling of the so-called emergency docket, where the Trump administration has filed more than 20 urgent appeals and has often found success blocking some of the district court rulings Trump has complained about. Critics argue that the Supreme Court issues rulings of massive significance on that docket without detailed opinions and typically without the legal briefing and argument that goes into regular cases. 'Because of the importance of those questions, we have been, I think, doing more and more process to try to get the right answer on those,' Kavanaugh said. 'Lots of new processes that we have undertaken over really the last five or six years to help us make the best decision we can in the short time we have.' With some lower-court judges expressing irritation at the high court for not explaining its reasoning in emergency orders, Kavanaugh pronounced himself 'a fan' of the court doing so. But he cautioned there are some drawbacks and some disagreement among the justices about the wisdom of more detailed emergency docket rulings. 'I think there are different views among members of the court about when to do it and when not. We're nine independent people,' he said. Kavanaugh did seek to minimize perceptions of a stark divide at the Supreme Court between liberal and conservative camps. He referred to his colleagues by their first names and insisted relationships among the justices are friendly.
