The United States government announced, on Wednesday, July 30, 2025, sanctions against Supreme Federal Court (STF) Justice Alexandre de Moraes under the Magnitsky Act, a U.S. law targeting foreigners accused of human rights violations or corruption. Issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), part of the Treasury Department, the measure bars Moraes from entering the U.S., freezes his assets, and prohibits transactions with American companies. The decision, supported by Brazilian congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro (PL-SP), intensifies the diplomatic crisis between Brazil and the U.S., worsened by the revelation that Moraes’ U.S. visa expired two years ago. The sanctions cite alleged censorship and politically motivated prosecutions, including the case against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a defendant in a coup attempt. Brazilian authorities have reacted, condemning the measure as interference in national sovereignty.
The U.S. decision comes amid growing bilateral tensions, following Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s revocation of visas for Moraes, other STF justices, and their families on July 18. The Trump administration claims Moraes is leading a “witch hunt” against political opponents, including American citizens and companies. In Brazil, the measure is seen as an attempt to pressure the judiciary and shield Bolsonaro from accountability.
- Applied measures: Asset freeze in the U.S.
- Financial restrictions: Ban on transactions with U.S. companies.
- Immediate effect: Prohibition from entering the United States.
- Political backdrop: Bolsonaro’s coup attempt case.
The sanctions reflect the Trump administration’s strategy to use legal tools to influence international political disputes, with implications extending beyond bilateral ties and affecting the STF’s global image.
Reactions in Brazil and diplomatic fallout
The Magnitsky Act sanctions against Alexandre de Moraes sparked immediate reactions in Brazil. Government and judicial authorities labeled the measure an affront to national sovereignty. Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira called the U.S. action an attempt to meddle in domestic affairs, particularly in Bolsonaro’s trial. The move was seen as an escalation after Rubio’s visa revocations, which had already strained relations in Brasília.
Within the STF, the sanctions drew criticism from justices defending judicial independence. Moraes, who has not spoken publicly, is targeted for his role in high-profile cases, such as the fake news inquiry and the January 8, 2023, riots. The U.S. decision reignites debates about the legitimacy of unilateral sanctions against officials of democratic nations.
- Foreign Ministry response: Condemns the measure as undue interference.
- STF stance: Defends sovereignty and judicial independence.
- Political repercussions: Heightened polarization between Moraes’ supporters and critics.
The diplomatic crisis may prompt Brazil to pursue formal responses, such as protests at the United Nations or bilateral talks to mitigate the sanctions’ effects.
Origins and scope of the Magnitsky Act
The Magnitsky Act, enacted in 2012 under President Barack Obama, was created to punish Russian officials linked to the death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who exposed government corruption and died in prison in 2009. Expanded in 2016, the law now targets individuals globally for serious human rights abuses or systemic corruption. Its use against Moraes marks the first time a sitting judge from a democratic nation’s highest court has been sanctioned.
The sanctions impose severe financial and mobility restrictions. Even without U.S. assets, Moraes may face challenges in international transactions, as global financial institutions, fearing penalties, often avoid dealing with OFAC-listed individuals. The U.S. entry ban further isolates the justice on the global stage.
- Initial purpose: Punish Russian officials for corruption.
- 2016 expansion: Targets global human rights violators.
- Practical effects: Asset freezes and financial restrictions.
- Prior cases: Sanctions on figures from Venezuela, China, and Saudi Arabia.
The U.S. move raises questions about the political use of the law, with critics suggesting the sanctions on Moraes may be retaliation for judicial rulings opposing Trump’s allies.
Eduardo Bolsonaro’s role in the U.S.
Congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro (PL-SP) played a key role in pushing for sanctions against Moraes. Since February 2025, he has met with Republican lawmakers, including Cory Mills and Chris Smith, in Washington to lobby for action against the STF. Reports indicate Eduardo collaborated with Trump allies to draft the sanctions, which initially faced legal hurdles in the Treasury Department.
His efforts are part of a broader strategy to internationalize the political clash between Bolsonaro supporters and Brazil’s judiciary. Eduardo accuses Moraes of politically persecuting his father and allies, citing rulings like platform bans and arrests of supporters. The sanctions, he claims, serve as a “warning” to Brazilian authorities.
- U.S. engagement: Meetings with Republican congressmen.
- Trump support: Alignment with global conservative agendas.
- Brazilian backlash: Inquiry into Eduardo for foreign interference.
His actions deepen Brazil’s political divide, with Bolsonaro supporters hailing the sanctions as a victory, while the Lula administration condemns foreign meddling.
“No Censors on Our Soil” bill
Alongside the sanctions, the U.S. House is reviewing the “No Censors on Our Soil” bill, introduced by Republican Representatives Maria Elvira Salazar and Darrell Issa. Approved by the Judiciary Committee in February 2025, the bill aims to bar entry to foreigners accused of censoring U.S. citizens. Though not naming Moraes, its authors link it to STF rulings, such as platform bans in Brazil.
Moraes responded to the bill in 2024, stating that Brazil ceased being a colony in 1822 and that its judiciary is independent. The bill’s progress fuels the narrative that STF actions, particularly Moraes’, infringe on free speech for Americans and their companies.
- Bill’s purpose: Restrict entry of alleged censors.
- Sponsors: Representatives Maria Elvira Salazar and Darrell Issa.
- Context: Response to Brazil’s platform bans.
- Moraes’ reaction: Defense of national sovereignty.
The bill, pending a full House vote, could further strain diplomatic ties if passed, formalizing restrictions on foreign officials.
Financial and personal effects of sanctions
Magnitsky Act sanctions carry significant consequences, even for those without U.S. assets. Inclusion on the OFAC list bars transactions with American companies, such as using Visa or Mastercard. Global banks, wary of secondary sanctions, may block accounts or limit services for listed individuals.
For Moraes, the expired U.S. visa from two years ago reduces the impact of the entry ban, but financial restrictions could hinder international transactions. Experts note the sanctions’ reputational weight, placing Moraes alongside figures accused of abuses in authoritarian regimes.
- Banking restrictions: Inability to use U.S.-based card brands.
- Financial isolation: Global banks may avoid transactions.
- Reputational effect: Association with human rights violators.
- Expired visa: Limited impact of U.S. entry ban.
The measure could encourage other nations to adopt similar sanctions, setting a precedent for international legal disputes.
