Trump’s Brazil Tariffs Point More to His Enduring Bond with Far-Right Bolsonaro Than Economic Concerns

Brazilian President Lula da Silva was quick in reacting, stating his country could respond in kind if tariffs indeed come into effect on August 1.

There has been much speculation about the reasons behind Trump’s decision and timing, with some onlookers noting the proximity to the recent meeting of the BRICS nations, a grouping of emerging economies, including Brazil, which had already drawn Trump’s ire.

Others argued that this was a protective measure to defend key U.S. industries, such as steel, which have been facing continued difficulties against cheaper products from Brazil.

The clearest answer, however, came from Trump himself.

In a letter to Lula, the U.S. President indicated that his main grievance with Brazil is in fact the trial that former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro faces in front of that country’s highest court.

The former far-right firebrand is charged for refusing to recognize the result of the last presidential election in October 2022 and for allegedly having led an attempted coup against the democratic institutions and rule of law in January 2023.

If convicted, Bolsonaro and some of his closest associates could face long prison sentences.

A history of meddling

The only economic rationale mentioned in Trump’s letter, that of a deficit that his country is said to face with Brazil, is belied by the numbers.

The U.S. has sustained consistent surpluses in trade with the South American nation for close to two decades now.

And Steve Bannon, Trump’s former adviser, active cheerleader and primary conduit between the Trump camp and Bolsonaro, was even more blunt than the U.S. president.

In an interview with one of Brazil’s main news site, he stated: “Stop the trial and we will reverse the tariffs.”

As the history of U.S.-Latin American relations ably demonstrates, this is far from the first time Washington has meddled in the region in order to satisfy its own political proclivities.

Indeed, particularly during the Cold War, a slew of U.S. decision-makers actively intervened to support friendly right-wing regimes or to otherwise remove from power administrations considered unacceptably independent.

This was nonetheless the first time in recent history that the official U.S. position is that a foreign nation should face harsh economic punishment unless its current government illegally circumvents the Judicary’s constitutional role to stop a major investigation against someone accused of high crimes.

Trump-Bolsonaro: Mutual admiration

Of course, Trump’s overt support for Bolsonaro is not surprising, nor new. Their relationship of mutual admiration and ideological affinity hearkens back to the latter’s first presidential campaign in 2018, when he was labeled, to great reciprocal delight, the “Trump of the Tropics.”

During the subsequent two years when their terms coincided (2019-2000), both men pledged to have a mutual special relationship, though to little consequence – no consequential bilateral projects were put in place.

Both leaders also share the experience of having failed to obtain a second consecutive term and having supported the derailment of the peaceful transfer of power.

Now that Trump is back in power, Bolsonaro hopes that the U.S. president will come to his rescue.

Seeking to obtain explicit support, Bolsonaro’s third son, Eduardo, a member of Brazil’s lower house of congress and his family’s most eloquent international voice, took a leave from his legislative duties and moved to the U.S. early this year.

He did so to lobby on behalf of his father based on the fallacious argument that Lula is a left-wing dictator, that Bolsonaro faces a politically motivated trial, and that the U.S. government should act against Lula’s administration.

Given Trump’s tariff notice and the explicit reasons he gave for it, it seems safe to assume that Eduardo’s actions paid dividends.

Which direction will Brazil head?

Like the U.S., Brazil is deeply fractured along left and right political lines. So it was no surprise that the local reactions to Trump’s announcement manifested along ideological camps.

Despite their leader’s legal travails, Bolsonaro’s supporters remain very influential in politics, the media and among important economic areas, such as the agribusiness sector.

Whether Trump’s decision will serve to help people rally around and in support of Lula and against a case of foreign interference is unclear. Lula’s initial pronouncement that Brazil would respond in kind was seen favorably among his supporters, though the opposition and many in the media pinned the blame on Lula for not being able to forge compromise with the Trump administration.

Key industrialists in the powerful state of Sao Paulo, where Bolsonaro’s powerful ally Tarcisio de Freitas serves as governor, will be the first ones affected by the new tariffs. But the pain will likely spread into other activities, including in the countryside.

And given that the bulk of the country’s agricultural exports go to China rather than to the U.S., the important question is whether these powerful exporters will act pragmatically and work with Lula to enlarge trade with the Asian giant and other countries, or whether they will continue to act ideologically and continue to support Bolsonaro’s enduring partnership with Trump against their own economic interests.

Dialogue has been a hallmark of Brazil’s diplomacy, and even in the middle of these latest heated diplomatic exchanges, Lula reiterated his willingness to negotiate.

It is unclear, though, whether the Trump administration’s actions in Latin America will be conducted on the basis of rationality and actual numbers, or if they will indeed bring back some old ideologically driven behaviors of picking sides in the internal political disputes of foreign nations.

Should one consider, at face value, Trump’s latest letter, there is reason for concern.

Rafael R. Ioris, Professor of Modern Latin American History, University of Denver

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.