Brazil's Supreme Court caught off guard by order to arrest Bolsonaro, sources say
Justice Moraes placed ex-President Bolsonaro under house arrest
*
The order came amid dispute with Bolsonaro ally Trump
*
Bolsonaro faces trial on attempted coup charges
By Luciana Magalhaes, Ricardo Brito and Lisandra Paraguassu
SAO PAULO, - Brazil's Supreme Court was caught off-guard by Justice Alexandre de Moraes' decision late on Monday to place former President Jair Bolsonaro under house arrest, two sources at the court told Reuters on Tuesday.
The order underscores Moraes' readiness to act on his own despite both polarization among Brazilians on the issue and rising tensions with the White House. It came just days ahead of the introduction of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods entering the United States.
U.S. President Donald Trump imposed the levies as a reaction to what he has characterized as a "witch hunt" led by Moraes against Bolsonaro, who is standing trial under charges of plotting a coup to overturn his 2022 electoral defeat. Bolsonaro has denied wrongdoing and described Moraes as a "dictator."
Moraes' ruling has sparked concern within the Brazilian government that Trump could retaliate by inflicting further damage to Brazil's economy, two sources close to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's inner circle told Reuters.
But Brazilian officials are not planning to push back against Moraes. The two court sources, one of whom is a justice, told Reuters that the other Supreme Court justices were supportive of Moraes, while those close to Lula said the president has neither the willingness nor the ability to influence the Supreme Court.
"It doesn't change our approach in the slightest," said the justice, who asked not to be named to discuss the matter candidly.
The Lula administration is instead planning policies to support those industries likely to be hardest hit by Trump's tariffs and to keep diplomatic channels open with Washington, said the political sources.
But the Moraes move could create obstacles for the Brazilian negotiators, said Fabio Medina Osorio, Brazil's former attorney general.
"This decision can certainly make things difficult," he said.
A POLARIZED COUNTRY
The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a verdict within weeks on the charges that Bolsonaro and his allies plotted to overthrow democracy. It is widely expected to convict the former president.
Moraes' house arrest order cited a failure to comply with restraining orders he had imposed on Bolsonaro for allegedly courting Trump's interference in the case.
While domestically Moraes has received praise by some for defending Brazil's judicial independence, others have accused him of overreach. The latest order drew mixed reactions, according to a Quaest poll based on social media posts, with 53% in favor and 47% against the arrest.
Newspapers that had written scathing editorials about the alliance between Bolsonaro and Trump also questioned Moraes' decisions.
"Moraes was wrong to order the arrest of the former president for communicating with supporters in a rally organized by the right," an editorial by Brazilian newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo said. "Brazil must acknowledge that Jair Bolsonaro has broad freedom to defend himself in court and to express himself wherever he chooses, including on social media."
Former Supreme Court justices, too, offered differing views regarding the decision.
"Alexandre de Moraes, in his ruling, not only upholds the country's sovereignty and independence but also the autonomy of Brazil's judiciary," said Carlos Ayres Britto, who left the Supreme Court bench in 2012.
But former Justice Marco Aurelio Mello disagreed. "My perspective would be different given the constitutional principle of presumed innocence," he said.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
4 minutes ago
- First Post
'It's personal': Analyst says Modi's pushback on Op Sindoor ceasefire claim sparked Trump's tariff fury
The analyst was referring to India's firm rejection of Trump's claims that he played a pivotal role in brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan following Operation Sindoor read more US President Donald Trump looks on as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi speaks during a 'Howdy, Modi' rally at NRG Stadium in Houston, Texas, US September 22, 2019. (Photo: Reuters) The recent decision by US President Donald Trump to impose additional tariffs on India, citing the purchase of Russian oil, has sparked debate about the motivations behind this move. Michael Kugelman, a prominent South Asia analyst and Director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington DC, argues that the tariffs are less about economic strategy and more about personal resentment. In an interview with news agency ANI, Kugelman described the situation as the 'worst crisis' in US-India relations in the past two decades, suggesting that Trump's actions stem from taking India's independent stance as a personal slight. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Kugelman pointed out a perceived double standard in Trump's approach, particularly when compared to his treatment of China. When asked why Trump was targeting India but not China, Kugelman explained: '…China has not stood out there and refused to let President Trump take credit for his role in the ceasefire. China has not had its leader have a long conversation with Trump on the phone and essentially dictate to him what's right and what's wrong. These are things that happened with India. So, I think that's why perhaps President Trump would reserve some of his greatest ire on the trade and tariff front for India and for the Indian government. Indeed, it's a double standard. It's hypocritical, whatever you want to say…' The analyst was referring to India's firm rejection of Trump's claims that he played a pivotal role in brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan following Operation Sindoor. Trump has repeatedly attributed the halt in hostilities to trade incentives offered by the US, a narrative that India has consistently debunked. Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar has previously dismissed any suggestion of external mediation, but it was Prime Minister Narendra Modi's statement in Parliament that drove the point home. 'We had said from day one that our action was non-escalatory. No leader in the world asked us to stop Operation Sindoor,' Modi declared from the Parliament, directly challenging Trump's version of events. However, Kugelman's analysis has drawn criticism from some quarters in India. Former Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal questioned why Modi has refrained from directly confronting Trump's misleading claims. In a post on X, Sibal expressed frustration: 'Why play the charade of giving false credit for a ceasefire based on trade threats and one announced over the head of India's leader, creating thereby impression India was pressured to agree? Trump can keep assailing India as a tariff king, threaten tariffs, talk of his interest in mediating the Kashmir issue but Modi dare not tell him what's right and what's wrong? India has sovereign interests which it has to defend.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Sibal also highlighted what he sees as Trump's inconsistent approach toward China. He noted, 'Chinese spokespersons day in and day out speak disparagingly of the US, talk down at it, express defiance. Yet, Trump is delaying imposing tariffs on China.'
India Today
34 minutes ago
- India Today
Abu Salem to serve 60 years' prison term, no early release for now: State to court
The Maharashtra government has said that gangster Abu Salem, convicted in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case, must serve a full 60-year prison term. In an order dated July 14, 2025, the state said Salem is not entitled to remission for the time refers to a reduction in a prisoner's sentence granted by the state, often based on good behaviour or other factors. It allows for early release but does not erase the had approached the High Court earlier this year, claiming he was entitled to be released on March 31, 2025, after completing 25 years of imprisonment, including time served as an undertrial and remission earned over the years. His petition, filed through advocate Farhana Shah, argued that he had earned both general and special remissions and cited a Supreme Court order upholding a commitment made by the Indian government to Portugal that he would not be jailed for more than 25 in an affidavit filed on July 30, Nashik Road Central Prison Superintendent Aruna A Mugutrao submitted to the court that the home department had issued an order on July 14 rejecting Salem's claim. The affidavit said Salem would have to serve 60 years to be eligible for remission and can only be released after completing 25 actual years in custody—excluding remissions—due to the sovereign assurance given to Portugal at the time of his was declared a proclaimed offender on October 15, 1993, and arrested in Lisbon on September 18, 2002. He was extradited from Portugal on November 10, 2005, after India assured the Portuguese government that Salem would not face the death penalty or a sentence beyond 25 years. This assurance was key to securing his Salem was later convicted in multiple serious cases, including the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts that killed 257 people and injured over 1,400. He was sentenced to life prison authorities stated that Salem has a long and serious criminal record, including fleeing the country after the blasts.'Salem has a history which is not a palatable one at all,' the affidavit said. 'After committing many crimes, he fled the country.'The affidavit also noted that a proposal for his early release had been sent to the state home department, along with recommendations from the Advisory Board, the trial court, the police, the district magistrate, and senior prison the state home department has decided not to approve the request. Citing the enduring trauma of blast victims and the gravity of the crime, it said Salem, like the other bomb blast convicts, would be considered for remission when he serves 60 years."People who suffered in the blast are still bearing the brunt of the horrific tragedy which unfolded in 1993," the government said.- EndsMust Watch
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
34 minutes ago
- First Post
Like a bamboo in the wind: How India balances in a world of Trump and Xi
(File) US President Donald Trump meets with China's President Xi Jinping at the start of their bilateral meeting at the G20 leaders summit in Osaka, Japan on June 29, 2019. Reuters Few political eras have seen such starkly contrasting figures rise to global prominence — each ruling a major country, both intent on shaping the world in their own image. One governs the United States; the other, China. No prizes for guessing they are President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping. Metaphorically speaking, Trump is a wrecking ball: he crashes through barriers, disregards structure and thrives on disruption. Xi, on the other hand, is a granite mountain — unyielding, slow to react, but nearly impossible to move or break. If Trump is a gladiator in a packed arena, Xi is a master chess player behind a curtain. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Yet, they are united, each in their own way, by a single mission: to test the true extent of India's nerves of steel. When comparing Xi and Trump, it's crucial to understand the starkly different political systems they represent and the sharply contrasting styles they embody. Both are resolute, but their firmness manifests differently. While being 'adamant' implies an unyielding stance, how that quality is expressed varies greatly with context. Xi and Trump both exhibit a strong will, but in uniquely revealing ways. Xi Jinping: Strategic and systemic adamance Xi operates within a one-party authoritarian political system where opposition is minimal and dissent is tightly controlled. In such a centralised environment, public disagreement is rare. Xi is consistent, measured and deeply committed to long-term strategic goals. These include the centralisation of power — evident in his removal of presidential term limits — and the reinforcement of state control over information and dissent, as seen in his handling of Hong Kong and the Xinjiang region. He is also a strong advocate for what he calls 'national rejuvenation,' pushing for China to assume a more dominant role on the global stage. Xi's adamance is cold, calculated and institutionally reinforced. He rarely shifts direction and uses the full power of the state to achieve ideological consistency. His leadership exhibits an unwavering commitment to the Communist Party's vision, reflecting a deep alignment with China's long-term national strategy. Donald Trump: Personal and rhetorical adamance In contrast, Trump operates within a democratic system that features checks and balances, open criticism and political opposition. This environment requires more visible and combative forms of assertion, especially from a polarising figure like Trump. Trump is highly assertive and thrives on confrontation. He is known for sticking to controversial positions even in the face of strong opposition. While he may change tactics frequently, his underlying positions often remain fixed. He leverages media attention and public spectacle to project strength and dominance. Trump's adamance is performative, emotionally charged and heavily reliant on personality. It manifests most clearly in his refusal to concede defeat, his tendency to attack critics and his use of social media to dominate discourse. While not as ideologically grounded as Xi, Trump is unwavering in demanding personal loyalty and projecting dominance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Psychological contrast Xi exhibits a deliberative cognitive style. His adamance is ideological and institutional, rooted in a long-term vision for China's future. His motivation appears to be legacy-driven focussed on national rejuvenation and absolute control over the trajectory of the Chinese state. Trump, on the other hand, demonstrates an impulsive and reactive cognitive style. His adamance is more emotional and public, driven by ego, dominance and the need to maintain a loyal following. Unlike Xi, his political rigidity is less about ideology and more about identity and personal vindication. India walks a diplomatic tightrope Wading through the global stage today, India finds itself balancing between two geopolitical titans — Xi and Trump — who sit at opposite ends of the leadership pendulum. One is cold, methodical and ideologically unyielding and the other fiery, impulsive and emotionally confrontational. For Indian diplomacy, this contrast presents not just a challenge. It's a litmus test of strategic agility, neutrality and national interest preservation. Engaging with China under Xi means India must be equally deliberate, balancing border tensions, trade dependencies and regional influence without triggering direct escalation. The border issues with Beijing are yet to be resolved fully and China is already playing hardball with New Delhi when it comes to exporting rare earth minerals to India. With China, India must read between silences — deciphering intention through subtle policy shifts rather than public declarations. Any misstep risks being frozen out of regional initiatives, or worse, being slowly encircled geopolitically. With Trump, the danger wasn't silence but noise. India had to stay close enough to benefit from alignment without getting pulled into America-first whirlwinds that could burn long-standing strategic autonomy. That is already proving to be a tough ask with two back-to-back tariff 25 per cent each imposed on India. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Caught between ice and fire, India walks a perilous tightrope — measured, cautious and acutely aware of the stakes. It must balance history with ambition, geography with strategy and ideology with interest. Lean too far toward the United States, and it risks provoking China; tilt toward China, and it jeopardises critical defence ties, technology access and democratic alignment with the West. Success lies not in picking sides, but in preserving strategic autonomy with quiet strength. Like bamboo in the wind, India must bend without breaking — resilient, adaptable and rooted deeply in its own national purpose. In this delicate act of balance, India isn't merely reacting to great power rivalry — it is shaping its own centre of gravity.
