Brazil

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares99 Views

    Delayed US report on global human trafficking is released

    by

    The US Department of State has released a long-delayed, legally required report on human trafficking after an investigation by the Guardian and bipartisan pressure from Congress.The 2025 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report, which details conditions in the United States and more than 185 countries, was initially scheduled for release at an event in June featuring the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, the Guardian has reported, but the event was scrapped and staff at the state department office charged with leading the federal government’s fight against human trafficking were cut by more 70%.The US Trafficking Victims Protection Act requires that the state department provide the report to Congress each year no later than 30 June. The delay in the release of the report this year raised fears among some anti-trafficking advocates that the 2025 document had been permanently shelved.The report was published quietly on the agency’s website on Monday without a customary introduction from the secretary of state or the ambassador tasked with monitoring and combating human trafficking, a position Donald Trump has not filled.The state department did not answer repeated questions from the Guardian about why the report had been delayed, but said it was subject to “the same rigorous review process as in years past”.The Guardian highlighted the report’s delay in a 17 September article reporting that the Trump administration has aggressively rolled back efforts across the federal government to combat human trafficking. White House officials called the Guardian’s findings “nonsense” and said the administration remains committed to anti-trafficking efforts.Representative Sarah McBride, a Democrat from Delaware, who won unanimous approval from the House foreign affairs committee for an amendment that added additional oversight of federal anti-trafficking efforts hours after the Guardian’s investigation was published, expressed a mix of relief and frustration. “Let’s be clear: this report should never have been delayed in the first place,” she said in a statement.McBride said she would “be reading it closely, alongside advocates and survivors, to ensure that it lives up to its mission – shining a light on trafficking and pressing governments to act”.Current and former state department officials told the Guardian that unlike the department’s annual human rights report, which was significantly weakened amid reports of political interference, the human-trafficking report largely appears to represent an honest assessment of agency experts on anti-trafficking work abroad. There was a notable exception. Earlier this year, an effort to draft a section on LGBTQ+ victims, written in coordination with two trafficking survivors, was terminated.Jose Alfaro, one of the survivors invited to draft the now-excised section, said he was told that Trump’s executive order banning references to diversity, equity and inclusion was the reason he and the rest of the team were pulled off the project.The term “LGBTQ” doesn’t appear in the 2025 report, and Alfaro says this is a mistake. Without “critical context” about what makes some groups vulnerable to trafficking and how to identify potential victims, “we only contribute to the problem rather than solving it”, he said.According to a state department spokesperson, “Human trafficking affects human beings, not ideologies. The 2025 TIP report focuses on human trafficking issues directly, as they affect all people regardless of background.”A state department spokesperson said the US had made significant strides in ending forced labor in the Cuban export program and working with the Department of Treasury in imposing sanctions on entities using forced labor to run online scam centers.As for shifts in anti-trafficking strategy, the state department provided a statement from Rubio saying the agency is “reorienting our foreign assistance programs to align directly with what is best for the United States and our citizens. We are continuing essential lifesaving programs and making strategic investments that strengthen our partners and our own country.”The report names Cambodia a “state sponsor” of trafficking for the first time, a designation that can lead to sanctions. It alleges senior Cambodian government officials profit from human trafficking by allowing properties they own to be “used by online scam operators to exploit victims in forced labor and forced criminality”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAfghanistan, China, Iran, North Korea and Russia – which the report says forcibly has transferred “tens of thousands of Ukrainian children to Russia, including by forcibly separating some children from their parents or guardians” – are also listed among the state sponsors of trafficking.Representative Chris Smith, a Republican from New Jersey who wrote the landmark Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, released a statement praising Trump. “The president is absolutely right to spotlight and criticize those countries that are not only failing to stop human trafficking, but in many cases, are actively profiting from it,” he said.Brazil and South Africa were put on a state department “watchlist” of countries that show insufficient efforts to combat human trafficking and may face sanctions for the first time, with the department citing failures of both countries to demonstrate progress on the issue, with fewer investigations and prosecutions.The document is also critical of Israel, describing as “credible” reports that “Israeli forces forcibly used Palestinian detainees as scouts in military operations in Gaza to clear booby-trapped buildings and tunnels and gather information”.The allegations were first raised by Palestinian sources and confirmed by Israeli soldiers in testimony gathered by Breaking the Silence, an organization of current and former members of the Israeli military. They have since been substantiated in investigations by Israeli media.Joel Carmel, a former IDF officer who serves as Breaking the Silence’s advocacy director, said he hoped the report “would be used to be sure Israel is held accountable” and “doesn’t end up sitting on a shelf somewhere”. He said despite a ruling by the Israeli supreme court that declared the use of human shields to be illegal, “there’s certainly the fear that this is the new norm for the IDF”.Under previous administrations – including Trump’s first – the TIP report was released with great fanfare. The secretary of state typically hosts a “launch ceremony” featuring the TIP ambassador and anti-trafficking “heroes” from around the world.​​The delayed report release is part of an ongoing retreat in the Trump administration’s support of anti-trafficking measures, including the impending lapse of more than 100 grants from the Department of Justice, which advocates say could deprive thousands of survivors from access to services when funding runs out today.

    Aaron Glantz is a fellow at Stanford University’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences

    Bernice Yeung is managing editor at the investigative reporting program at UC Berkeley Journalism

    Noy Thrupkaew is a reporter and director of partnerships at Type Investigations More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The US government is facing a crisis of legitimacy | Daniel Mendiola

      by

      Between anti-immigrant zeal and a general disdain for any rules whatsoever, the Trump administration has shredded the constitutional order that makes government legitimate.This is now a legitimacy crisis.There are different philosophical approaches to government legitimacy, but in the United States, the most straightforward explanation is the social contract. Often associated with Enlightenment philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau and extremely influential with US founders, the social contract refers to the idea that the government requires the consent of the governed to be legitimate.Crucially, in exchange for this consent, the government accepts certain limits on what it can do. In other words, the government also has to follow the rules.The US has suffered crises of legitimacy before. Arguably, the 1964 Civil Rights Act emerged from just such a crisis. At a base level, the act conceded that to be legitimate, the government needed to actually recognize the rights of all its citizens – not just those of a certain race. It didn’t fix everything, but it was an important step in creating a stronger social contract for the next generation.The Trump administration, however, has reversed course on civil rights, abandoned limited government and eviscerated the social contract beyond recognition. From defying courts, to attacking judges, to capriciously revoking legal immigration statuses, to executing suspected drug smugglers, there is no shortage of examples.One example that deserves a lot more attention than it is currently receiving, however, is the horror story of Trump’s collaboration with a megaprison in El Salvador.To summarize, in March, the Trump administration forcibly sent more than 250 people, mostly Venezuelans accused of having ties to the Tren de Aragua gang, to El Salvador to be detained in a paid arrangement with Salvadorian president Nayib Bukele. Investigative reporting quickly confirmed that the entire operation – ostensibly to target dangerous criminals – was based on lies: only a small percentage of the targets had any criminal record at all, accusations of gang affiliations came from spurious evidence, and many of the detainees had followed the rules to enter the country legally.Nonetheless, instead of enjoying the rights guaranteed by US law, they suddenly faced imprisonment and alleged torture. Lower courts tried to halt the flights, but the Trump administration acted anyway.All of this would be horrifying enough as an isolated incident, but the legal saga surrounding the case has further disturbing implications. At first, the administration justified its actions through a controversial 18th-century law allowing the government to expel “alien enemies” in times of war – even though the country was not at war, and these were not “alien enemies”.However, the administration soon switched to a different argument that might be described like this: it doesn’t matter how many laws we broke – as long as the victims end up in a prison in a foreign country, US courts have no power to stop us. Also, we may do the same to US citizens.When the Trump administration first made these claims, news agencies covered them with much alarm. However, commentators since have avoided stating an uncomfortable truth: the administration was right. Apparently, it didn’t matter how many laws they broke. No one stopped them, nor have they faced any consequences.Significantly, the supreme court has played a critical role in this legitimacy crisis, not only by giving the Trump administration an unprecedented series of wins – often employing mind-boggling logic and blatant distortions of plain text – but also gutting the mechanisms that courts have to stop the executive branch when it gets caught doing illegal things.Here the battle over injunctions is revealing. In normal times, if the government gets caught doing something illegal, then judges have the power to issue an injunction to make the government actors in question stop. Government officials may appeal to a higher court, but in the meantime, the injunction prevents them from continuing to do harm while the case plays out.Now, think about a reality where injunctions don’t exist. If courts can’t issue an injunction to stop the government from doing illegal things, then no matter how blatantly the government is violating people’s rights, it can keep doing it unimpeded so long as the case stays tied up in appeals – a process that often takes years. In this scenario, law exists in theory, but there are virtually no limits to what the government can do in practice.This is shockingly close to the reality that the supreme court has now created. By rushing to overturn injunctions with no regard to who is being harmed, as well as creating seemingly arbitrary technicalities to prevent future injunctions, the message from the supreme court is clear: It doesn’t matter how many laws they broke. Now that Trump is in office, courts are simply not supposed to stop executive officials from putting Trump’s agenda into practice, regardless of how unlawful those practices might be.The extreme inability of our government to police itself becomes even clearer when it is placed alongside Brazil – the second-largest democracy in the Americas – where the former president Jair Bolsonaro was recently convicted for an attempted coup: after losing re-election in 2022, Bolsonaro tried a variety of tactics to stay in power, including inciting his followers to swarm government buildings to physically stop the peaceful transfer of power. If that sounds familiar, that’s because it was, indeed, strikingly similar to what Trump did in the January 6 riots after losing the 2020 election.Now, consider the difference in how our respective constitutional systems handled this. In the US, the supreme court not only blocked any potential trial for Trump’s role in the highly visible attempt to overthrow the government; it also took the opportunity to give him sweeping immunity for just about anything else. According to the logic of the majority decision, it doesn’t matter how many laws he broke. Being president is hard, and it is even harder if he has to worry about getting in trouble for breaking the law. So he should just have a virtual license to commit crimes. That way, he can take “vigorous, decisive” action.The Brazilian supreme court took a strikingly different approach. Apparently, it does matter how many laws Bolsonaro broke. Prosecutors presented strong evidence that he broke the law, so the supreme court decided that he should be prosecuted.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTellingly, this infuriated the Trump administration, which heaped criticism and sanctions on Brazilian judges in response. Brazilian courts refused to back down, however, and the trial ultimately resulted in a conviction.After watching this play out, I can’t help but wonder: what would it look like if my country had the courage to hold a lawless executive accountable?Here I want to be clear that in posing this question, I am calling for peaceful action. People will have to decide for themselves what this peaceful action looks like, though there is strength in numbers, and I think those numbers exist. As I have written previously, the nationwide protests against capricious and unlawful immigration raids are a testament to how many people are already fed up, and looking for ways to remind the government that it owes us rights.I also don’t think that questioning the government’s legitimacy right now is radical, partisan or even unpatriotic. In fact, nothing I am saying here contradicts what I was taught about legitimate government in my fifth grade social studies class at a conservative, patriotic public school in rural Texas. It is simply our civic duty to call out the government when it strays from the social contract.What’s giving me hope nowIn the classic Latin American protest anthem Me Gustan los Estudiantes, the celebrated Chilean composer Violeta Parra lauds the indomitable spirit of students. “Long live the students!” the song declares. They are the “garden of our joy” because they fearlessly defend truth, even when those in power try to force them to accept lies.Students give me hope as well.Overwhelmingly, the students that I have worked with over the years have shown themselves to be insightful thinkers with an unyielding dedication to truth, empathy, and solidarity. This is hopeful for many reasons, not the least of which being that this seems to terrify the people in power. Indeed, the same architects of our legitimacy crisis are also waging an aggressive campaign to squash campus protests, restrict institutional autonomy, and generally abolish academic freedom. Clearly, academic institutions have the potential to serve as a counterweight to government abuses. Otherwise, why would a lawless government be trying so hard to suppress us?Sadly, too many university leaders are now sacrificing academic legitimacy by caving to government pressure. The situation is bleak on this front as well, yet the battle is far from over.Our best hope: we need to be as fearless as our students.

      Daniel Mendiola is a professor of Latin American history and migration studies at Vassar College More

    • 263 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      One by one, leaders learn that grovelling to Trump leads to disaster. When will it dawn on Starmer? | Simon Tisdall

      by

      Sucking up to Donald Trump never works for long. Narendra Modi is the latest world leader to learn this lesson the hard way. Wooing his “true friend” in the White House, India’s authoritarian prime minister thought he’d conquered Trump’s inconstant heart. The two men hit peak pals in 2019, holding hands at a “Howdy Modi” rally in Texas. But it’s all gone pear-shaped thanks to Trump’s tariffs and dalliance with Pakistan. Like a jilted lover on the rebound, Modi shamelessly threw himself at Vladimir Putin in China last week. Don and Narendra! It’s over! Although, to be honest, it always felt a little shallow.Other suitors for Trump’s slippery hand have suffered similar heartbreak. France’s Emmanuel Macron turned on the charm, feting him at the grand reopening of Notre Dame Cathedral. But Trump cruelly dumped him after they argued over Gaza, calling him a publicity-seeker who “always gets it wrong”. The EU’s Ursula von der Leyen, desperate for a tete-a-tete, flew to Trump’s Scottish golf course to pay court. Result: perhaps the most humiliating, lopsided trade deal since imperial Britain’s 19th-century “unequal treaties” with Peking’s dragon throne.The list of broken pledges and dashed hopes is lengthy. Relationships between states normally pivot on power, policy and strategic interests. But with faithless, fickle Trump, it’s always personal – and impermanent. Disconcertingly, he told Mexico’s impressive president, Claudia Sheinbaum, that he “likes her very much” – then threatened to invade her country, ostensibly in pursuit of drug cartels. Leaders from Canada, Germany, Japan, South Korea and South Africa have all attempted to ingratiate themselves, to varying degrees. They still haven’t fared well.All this should set red lights flashing for Britain’s Keir Starmer ahead of Trump’s state visit in 10 days’ time. The prime minister’s unedifying Trump-whisperer act has produced little benefit to date, at high reputational cost. Starmer apparently believes his handling of the US relationship is a highlight of his first year in office. Yet Trump ignores his Gaza ceasefire pleas and opposes UK recognition of a Palestinian state. He hugely boosted Putin, Britain’s nemesis, with his half-baked Alaska summit. US security guarantees for postwar Ukraine are more mirage than reality. His steel tariffs and protectionist policies continue to hurt UK workers.His second state visit is an appalling prospect. The honour is utterly undeserved. It’s obvious what Trump will gain: a royal endorsement, a chance to play at being King Donald, a privileged platform from which to deliver his corrosive, divisive populist-nationalist diatribes at a moment of considerable social fragility in the US and UK. Polls suggest many Britons strongly oppose the visit; and most don’t trust the US. So what Starmer thinks he will gain is a mystery. The fleeting goodwill of a would-be dictator who is dismantling US democracy and wrecking the global laws-based order championed by the UK is a poor return.View image in fullscreenAs he demands homage from abject subjects, this spectacle will confirm the UK in the eyes of the world as a lackey state, afraid to stand up for its values. Starmer’s government is now so morally confused that it refuses to acknowledge that Israel, fully backed by Trump, is committing genocide in Gaza, while at the same time making the wearing of a pro-Palestine T-shirt a terrorist act. The Trump travesty will be an embarrassment, signalling a further descent into colonial subservience. As next year’s 250th anniversary of US independence approaches, the chronically unhealthy “special relationship” has finally come full circle.Not everyone is genuflecting to Trump – and evidence mounts that resistance, not grovelling, is by far the best way to handle this schoolyard bully. Modi’s geopolitical fling in China showed he’s learned that when dealing with Trump, firm resolve, supported by alternative options, is the better policy. Last week’s defiant speech by China’s leader, Xi Jinping, reflected a similar realisation. Both he and Putin have discovered that when they dig their heels in, whether the issue is Ukraine, trade or sanctions, Trump backs off. Xi has adopted an uncompromising stance from the start. Putin uses flattery, skilfully manipulating Trump’s frail ego. The result is the same. Like cowards the world over, Trump respects strength because he’s weak. So he caves.The bigger the wolf, the more sheepishly Trump responds. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, like Putin, an indicted war criminal, has shown that by sticking to his guns (literally, in his case), he can face down Trump. More than that, Trump can be co-opted. After Netanyahu attacked Iran in June, against initial US advice, he induced the White House to join in – although, contemptibly, Trump only did so once he was certain who was winning. Then, typically, he claimed credit for a bogus world-changing victory. North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong-un, similarly bamboozled Trump during his first term. Having learned nothing, and nursing his implausible Nobel peace prize ambitions, Trump is again raising the prospect of unconditional engagement with Kim.Brazil’s president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has the right idea. The more Trump tries to bully him with 50% tariffs and a barrage of criticism, the more he resists. Trump is particularly exercised over the fate of Jair Bolsonaro, Lula’s hard-right predecessor, who, like Trump, mounted a failed electoral coup. But Lula is not having any of it. “If the United States doesn’t want to buy [from us], we will find new partners,” he said. “The world is big, and it’s eager to do business with Brazil.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThat’s the spirit! And guess what? Lula’s poll ratings are soaring. Wake up, Keir Starmer – and dump Trump.

      Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      State department softens human rights criticisms of Trump-allied countries

      by

      Donald Trump’s administration has significantly changed a key US government report on human rights worldwide, dramatically softening criticism of some countries that have been strong partners of the Republican president, such as El Salvador and Israel, which rights groups say have well-established histories of abuses.Instead, the US state department sounded an alarm about what it said was the erosion of freedom of speech in Europe and ramped up criticism of Brazil and South Africa – both of which Washington has clashed with over a host of issues.Criticism of governments over their treatment of LGBTQ+ rights, which appeared in Biden administration editions of the report, appeared to have been largely omitted. Washington referred to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine mainly as the “Russia-Ukraine war”.The report’s section on Israel was much shorter than last year’s edition and contained no mention of the severe humanitarian crisis or death toll in Gaza. About 61,000 people have died, according to the Gaza health ministry, as a result of Israel’s military operations in response to an attack by the Palestinian militant group Hamas in October 2023.The report was delayed for months as Trump appointees altered an earlier state department draft dramatically to bring it in line with “America First” values, according to government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. The report introduced new categories such as “Life”, “Liberty” and “Security of the Person”.“There were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses,” the 2024 report said about El Salvador, in sharp contrast with the 2023 report that talked about “significant human rights issues” and listed them as credible reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings, torture, and harsh and life-threatening prison conditions.Washington’s bilateral ties with El Salvador have strengthened since Trump took office, as the administration has deported people to El Salvador with help from President Nayib Bukele, whose country is receiving $6m from the US to house the migrants in a high-security mega-prison.The Trump administration has moved away from the traditional US promotion of democracy and human rights, seeing it as interference in another country’s affairs, even as it criticized countries selectively, consistent with its broader policy towards a particular country.One example is Europe, where Trump officials repeatedly weighed in on European politics to denounce what they see as suppression of rightwing leaders, including in Romania, Germany and France, and accused European authorities of censoring views such as criticism of immigration.For decades, the state department’s congressionally mandated Human Rights Report has been used as a blueprint of reference for global rights advocacy.This year’s report was prepared after a major revamp of the department, which included the firing of hundreds of people, many from the agency’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, which takes the lead in writing the report.The secretary of state, Marco Rubio, in April wrote an opinion piece that said the bureau had become a platform for “left-wing activists”, saying the Trump administration would reorient the bureau to focus on “Western values”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn Brazil, where the Trump administration has clashed with the government, the state department found the human rights situation declined, after the 2023 report found no significant changes. This year’s report took aim at the courts, stating they took action undermining freedom of speech and disproportionately suppressing the speech of supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro, among others.Bolsonaro is on trial before the supreme court on charges he conspired with allies to violently overturn his 2022 presidential election loss to the leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Trump has referred to the case as a “witch-hunt” and called it grounds for a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods.In South Africa, whose government the Trump administration has accused of racial discrimination towards Afrikaners, this year’s report said the human rights situation significantly worsened. It stated: “South Africa took a substantially worrying step towards land expropriation of Afrikaners and further abuses against racial minorities in the country.”In last year’s report, the state department found no significant changes in the human rights situation in South Africa.Trump, earlier this year, issued an executive order that called for the US to resettle Afrikaners, describing them as victims of “violence against racially disfavored landowners”, allegations that echoed far-right claims but which have been contested by South Africa’s government. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      As Trump’s tariff regime becomes clear, Americans may start to foot the bill

      by

      Burying the hatchet with Brussels, Donald Trump – flanked by the leader of the European Commission – hailed a bold new era of transatlantic relations, an ambitious economic pact, and declared: “This was a very big day for free and fair trade.”That was seven years ago. And then on Sunday, the US president – flanked by a different leader of the European Commission – hailed another new era of transatlantic relations, another economic pact and declared: “I think it’s the biggest deal ever made.”Trumpian hyperbole can typically be relied upon as long as he’s in the room, at the lectern or typing into Truth Social. What matters after that is the underlying detail – and we have very little, beyond a handful of big numbers designed to grab headlines.What we do know, as a result of this deal, is that European exports to the US will face a blanket 15% tariff: a tax expected, at least in part, to be passed along to US consumers. The price of key products shipped from the EU, from cars to medicine and wine, is about to come into sharp focus.This pact is not unique. Trump’s agreement with Japan also hits Japanese exports to the US with a 15% tariff. Most British exports to the US face a 10% tariff under his deal with the UK.A string of countries without such accords, including Brazil, Canada and South Korea, are set to face even higher US tariffs from Friday. The Trump administration currently has a blanket 10% levy in place for US imports, although the president threatened to raise this to “somewhere in the 15 to 20% range” earlier this week.Ignore, for a moment, the chaos and the noise. Put to one side the unpredictable stewardship of the world’s largest economy, and its ties with the world. And forget the many U-turns, pauses and reprieves which have followed bold pronouncements, again and again and again.If you, like many businesses in the US and across the world, are struggling to keep up, take a step back and look at a single number. Since Trump took office, the average effective US tariff rate on all goods from overseas has soared to its highest level in almost a century: 18.2%, according to the Budget Lab at Yale.Trump argues this extraordinary jump in tariffs will bring in trillions of dollars to the US federal government. On his watch, tariffs have so far brought in tens of billions of dollars more in revenue this year than at the same point in 2024.But who picks up the bill? The president and his allies have position this fundamental shift in economic policy as a historic move away from taxing Americans toward taxing the world. But in reality, everyone pays.Tariffs are typically paid at the border, by the importer of the product affected. If the tariff on that product suddenly goes from 0% to 15%, the importer – as you’d expected – will try to pass it on. Every company at every stage of the supply chain will quite literally try to pass the buck, as much as possible.And the very end of the chain, economists expect prices will ultimately rise for consumers. The Budget Lab at Yale estimates the short-term impact of Trump’s tariffs so far is a 1.8% rise in US prices: equivalent to an average income loss of $2,400 per US household.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBig firms that have so far done their best to hold prices steady amid the blizzard of tariff uncertainty are now starting to warn of increases. Inflation, which Trump claims is very low in the US, picked up in June.The president appeared to reluctantly reckon with the reality that Americans may start to foot the bill for his tariffs before setting off for Scotland late last week.Asked about the prospect of using revenue from tariffs to distribute “rebate” checks to US consumers, Trump said: “We’re thinking about that, actually … We’re thinking about a rebate, because we have so much money coming in, from tariffs, that a little rebate for people of a certain income level might be very nice.”Given what inflation did to Joe Biden’s electoral fortunes, and Trump’s keen eye for populist policies, it’s hardly a stretch to imagine those cheques – signed by Donald J Trump – landing in bank accounts in time for the midterm elections next November.And such a move would, indeed, be very nice. Especially as it appears increasingly likely that, after this week, Americans will probably be paying more for almost everything. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Rubio moves to strip US visas from eight Brazilian judges in Bolsonaro battle

      by

      The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, has reportedly stripped eight of Brazil’s 11 supreme court judges of their US visas as the White House escalates its campaign to help the country’s former president Jair Bolsonaro avoid justice over his alleged attempt to seize power with a military coup.Bolsonaro, a far-right populist with ties to Donald Trump’s Maga movement, is on trial for allegedly masterminding a murderous plot to cling to power after losing the 2022 election to his leftwing rival, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Bolsonaro is expected to be convicted by the supreme court in the coming weeks and faces a jail sentence of up to 43 years.As the day of judgment nears, Trump has been increasing pressure on the court and President Lula’s administration. On 9 July, the US president announced he would impose 50% tariffs on all Brazilian imports as of 1 August, partly as a result of the supposed persecution of his ally. The move triggered an outpouring of nationalist anger in the South American country, with Lula describing it as “unacceptable blackmail”.On Friday, after federal police raided Bolsonaro’s house and fitted him with an electronic tag to stop him absconding, Rubio announced further moves in support of the defendant, who he claimed was the victim of a “political witch hunt”.Writing on X, Rubio said he had ordered visa revocations for the judge leading the investigation into Bolsonaro, Alexandre de Moraes, as well as “his allies on the court” and their family members. Rubio did not name his other targets but the Brazilian newspaper O Globo identified them as Luís Roberto Barroso, José Antonio Dias Toffoli, Cristiano Zanin, Flávio Dino, Cármen Lúcia Antunes Rocha, Luiz Edson Fachin and Gilmar Ferreira Mendes.Two other judges who were nominated to the court during Bolsonaro’s 2019-23 presidency, André Mendonça and Kassio Nunes Marques, reportedly avoided the sanction, as did a third judge, Luiz Fux.Lula denounced what he called “another arbitrary and completely groundless measure from the US government”.“Interference in another country’s justice system is unacceptable and offends the basic principles of national sovereignty and respect between nations,” the president said on Saturday, adding: “I’m certain that no kind of intimidation or threat – from whoever it may be – will compromise the most important mission of our nation’s powers and institutions, which is to act permanently to defend and safeguard the democratic rule of law.”The Trump strategist Alex Bruesewitz welcomed Rubio’s announcement, calling Bolsonaro’s treatment “sick and wrong”.Bolsonaro’s congressman son, Eduardo, thanked Rubio for his decision. “Thank you very much for this fight in favor of free speech, we do believe in the same values,” tweeted Eduardo, who has been living in the US since February and has reportedly been lobbying officials there over his father’s plight.Trump’s interventions have appalled millions of Brazilians who hope to see their former leader held responsible for the alleged coup attempt, which culminated in the 8 January riots in Brasília.Lula’s institutional relations minister, Gleisi Hoffmann, called the visa cancellations “an aggressive and petty retaliation” and “an affront to the Brazilian judiciary and national sovereignty”.Even influential rightwing voices have criticised the US’s attempt to meddle in one of the world’s most populous democracies by imposing 50% tariffs.On Saturday, the conservative Estado de São Paulo newspaper described Trump’s behaviour as “unacceptable external interference in Brazil’s domestic matters”. “Trump has not only attacked our national sovereignty … [but also] stained the history of diplomatic relations between the two largest democracies in the Americas,” the newspaper’s editorial board wrote.While the Bolsonaros have hailed Trump’s actions, they also appear to have grasped how the announcement of tariffs has backfired, allowing Lula to pose as a nationalist defender of Brazilian interests and paint the Bolsonaro clan as self-serving “traitors”.Lula, who had been facing growing public disillusionment and an uphill battle to win re-election next year, has enjoyed a bounce in the polls since Trump launched his trade war, the brunt of which will be borne by coffee producers and cattle ranchers in Bolsonaro-voting regions, such as São Paulo.Celso Rocha de Barros, a political columnist, said he suspected the Bolsonaros had been blindsided by the scale of Trump’s attack.“I think [Bolsonaro] wanted some kind of penalty – something he could use to say: ‘Look, Brazil’s being punished because of Bolsonaro’s persecution. But [the tariffs] went far too far … [they] screwed Bolsonaro’s base,” said Rocha de Barros, pointing to their potential impact on agribusiness.On Friday night, Bolsonaro’s senator son, Flávio, post on X, calling on Trump to suspend the tariffs and replace them with individual sanctions. Soon after, however, he deleted the post. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      US-Brazil Tariffs: What to Know About Trump’s History With Bolsonaro

      by

      The fight is rooted in years of political history between President Trump and the last two presidents of Brazil.The Western Hemisphere’s two largest nations appear headed for a full-blown trade war — with a twist.President Trump on Wednesday pledged to impose 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian imports. His rationale wasn’t entirely economic — the United States has a trade surplus with Brazil — but political. Mr. Trump said Brazil was carrying out a “witch hunt” against his political ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial for attempting a coup.A few hours later, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil said his government would respond with its own tariffs on U.S. imports. “Brazil is a sovereign nation with independent institutions and will not accept any form of tutelage,” he said in a statement.Brazil is weighing tariffs on specific American products or sectors, according to a senior Brazilian official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closed meetings. Seeking to minimize any jolt to Brazil’s economy, the government does not plan to apply broad-based tariffs on all American products, the official said.The feud is the latest in a long-running saga involving Mr. Trump, Mr. Bolsonaro and Mr. Lula, and it shows how Mr. Trump is using tariffs to settle scores against his political enemies.Here’s what you need to know:What did Trump threaten, and why?What products does Brazil export to the U.S.?What is Trump’s history with Bolsonaro and Lula?What is the case against Bolsonaro?What happens next?We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      After a Fire, Rebuilding the National Museum of Brazil

      by

      Years after a devastating fire, Brazil is slowly rebuilding an institution dedicated to the country’s cultural heritage.This personal reflection is part of a series called The Big Ideas, in which writers respond to a single question: What is history? You can read more by visiting The Big Ideas series page.Steel beams hanging in the air,twisted by the intense heat.Shattered glass scattered across the floor,melted by the flames.Iron intertwined in all directions,exposed by collapses.Walls blackened by soot,resulting from the burning of a country’s memory …I wrote these lines shortly after Sept. 2, 2018. It is a day I will never forget.That day, the National Museum of Brazil in Rio de Janeiro was devastated by an intense fire. For those of us who work in Brazil’s cultural sector, the fire was the realization of our worst nightmare. The tragedy did not come without warning. The risks the museum faced were well-known. The lack of proper maintenance was obvious throughout the building. Along with my fellow museum officials, I frequently pushed government officials for more resources, but these efforts were not successful.If I had to choose one building in Brazil that should be protected and preserved, it would be the museum, and not just because of its collections. The site is connected to many notable moments in Brazil’s history. Since 1892, the museum has been housed in the former royal palace. The building was home to the Portuguese royal family after they fled to Rio de Janeiro to escape Napoleon. After Brazil’s independence, it was the residence of Brazil’s emperor.The museum, which was founded on June 6, 1818, by King John VI of Portugal, is Brazil’s first scientific institution. Before the fire, the museum contained over 20 million items, including unpublished documents from Empress Maria Leopoldina, ethnographic objects from Indigenous Brazilians, significant specimens of the country’s biodiversity, fossils and rare minerals. The blaze destroyed about 85 percent of the museum’s collection.The interior of the National Museum of Brazil following the fire in 2018. Many in Brazil blamed the fire on funding cuts and a lack of proper building maintenance.Diogo VasconcellosIn the aftermath, one of the hardest moments for me was paradoxically also one of the most inspiring. The day after the fire, while smoke was still everywhere, a large group of people, including some high school students, approached the remains of the museum. For security reasons, the police did not let them get close to the building. After some tense negotiations, the group was allowed to do what they came for: The members formed a human chain and embraced the remains of an institution that — in reality — belongs to them, the public. When I remember this scene, it is hard to hold back my tears. We, the guardians of their cultural heritage and history, failed them.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Extremely Lifelike Dolls Cause a Frenzy in Brazil

      by

      A young woman posts a video that appears to show her holding her baby, Bento, and packing his bag for a trip to the hospital. She calls it “one of the busiest and scariest days for me.”She grabs onesies, a bottle and medical documents and tucks him in the back of a car. At the hospital, he is weighed and lies in a bed, where she removes his pacifier, bottle-feeds him and wipes a few drops of formula from his cheek.But this was not an actual medical emergency — it was role-playing by a content creator — and the baby was not a real baby. It was a shockingly lifelike doll, called a reborn doll, which is handcrafted to look and feel like a baby.The video, which received more than 16 million views on TikTok, is part of a social media craze that has turned into a cultural and political flashpoint in Brazil. Widely circulated videos show women taking the hyperrealistic dolls to the park in strollers, celebrating their birthdays with cake and songs, and simulating childbirth. (A select few even simulate the dolls’ having a nosebleed or potty training.)The YouTuber Gabi Matos with her collection of dolls in Campinas, Brazil, in May.Nelson Almeida/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“The ones I like the most are the newborns,” said Juliana Drusz Magri, 36, who lives in Curitiba, the capital of the Brazilian state of Paraná, and works in human resources. She said she began collecting the dolls in 2018 and now has 22.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More