The United States sanctioned, on Wednesday (30), Supreme Federal Court (STF) Justice Alexandre de Moraes under the Magnitsky Act, used to punish foreigners accused of human rights violations or corruption. The decision, announced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), includes the revocation of visas for Moraes, his family, and STF allies, as well as potential asset freezes. The measure, led by Donald Trump’s administration, responds to Moraes’ judicial decisions against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a defendant for attempting a coup after the 2022 elections. The sanction escalates diplomatic tensions between Brazil and the US, raising debates about national sovereignty and freedom of expression.
The US offensive against Moraes gained momentum after efforts by congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro (PL-SP), who, since February 2025, has been lobbying in the US for measures against the justice. The application of the Magnitsky Act, enacted in 2012 and expanded in 2016, marks a milestone in bilateral relations, being the first time a foreign Supreme Court justice is targeted by this legislation. The decision reflects the perception of some in the Trump administration that Moraes is promoting censorship and political persecution, particularly against Bolsonaro supporters.
On the other hand, the Brazilian government, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, considers the sanction an unacceptable interference in domestic affairs. The STF, in response, reaffirmed the independence of the Brazilian judiciary, while analysts warn of risks of an unprecedented diplomatic crisis.
- Key implications of the sanction:
- Revocation of visas for Moraes, family, and STF allies.
- Potential freezing of assets in the US or banks operating there.
- Escalation of tensions between Brazil and the US, impacting trade relations.
- Global debate on judicial sovereignty and limits of international sanctions.
Reactions to the sanction against Moraes
The announcement of the sanctions sparked immediate reactions in Brazil and abroad. The Brazilian government, led by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, labeled the measure an affront to national sovereignty. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs intensified diplomatic contacts with the US State Department, seeking to clarify the rationale behind the decision and warning of potential negative impacts on bilateral relations. Brazilian authorities argue that Moraes’ actions aim to protect democracy by combating misinformation and attempts at institutional rupture.
At the STF, the response was firm. Moraes, without directly addressing the sanctions, emphasized in a statement the judiciary’s independence and Brazil’s sovereignty, referencing September 7, 1822, when the country gained independence. Other justices, such as Cármen Lúcia, reinforced the need for courage to uphold the rule of law.
- Reactions in Brazil:
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Considers the sanction interference in domestic affairs.
- STF: Reaffirms judicial independence and defense of democracy.
- Lula government: Seeks dialogue to avoid diplomatic escalation.
Magnitsky Act and its global reach
The Magnitsky Act, created in 2012 in honor of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who died in prison after exposing corruption, allows the US to impose sanctions on individuals accused of human rights violations or large-scale corruption. Initially targeting Russian officials, the law was expanded in 2016 to cover individuals from any country. Sanctions include asset freezes, entry bans to the US, and restrictions on financial transactions in dollars, even in institutions outside the US.
In Moraes’ case, the US justification centers on judicial decisions that, according to the Trump administration, violate freedom of expression, particularly of American citizens and companies. The visa revocation, announced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is only the first step. There are indications that stricter measures, such as asset freezes, are under consideration, though they face resistance within the OFAC, which fears damage to US credibility in promoting democracy.
- Features of the Magnitsky Act:
- Enacted in 2012, expanded globally in 2016.
- Targets individuals accused of corruption or human rights violations.
- Administers sanctions like asset freezes and US entry bans.
- Has sanctioned dozens of individuals in countries like Russia and Venezuela.
Eduardo Bolsonaro’s efforts in the US
Congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro played a central role in pushing for sanctions against Moraes. Since February 2025, he has resided in the US, meeting with Republican lawmakers, such as Cory Mills, and Trump administration officials. His actions included social media posts and interviews accusing Moraes of political persecution against his father, Jair Bolsonaro. In May, Brazil’s Attorney General’s Office (PGR) opened an investigation into Eduardo for alleged obstruction of justice and threats to national sovereignty.
Eduardo’s efforts gained traction after the approval, in February 2025, of the “No Censors on Our Soil” bill by the US House Judiciary Committee. The proposal, awaiting a full House vote, aims to punish foreign officials who “censor” American citizens. Though it does not directly name Moraes, the bill is seen as a response to STF decisions, such as the blocking of platforms like X and Rumble in Brazil.
- Eduardo Bolsonaro’s actions:
- Meetings with Republican lawmakers, such as Cory Mills.
- Posts accusing Moraes of censorship and persecution.
- PGR investigation for obstruction of justice.
Impacts on Brazil-US relations
The sanction against Moraes marks a delicate moment in Brazil-US relations. Analysts warn that the measure could lead to a diplomatic crisis, with repercussions for trade and international cooperation. Brazil, which has maintained a trade surplus with the US since 2009, faces threats of increased tariffs, such as the 50% announced by Trump in July, justified by political motivations.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has sought dialogue to avoid escalation but rules out reciprocal measures, such as sanctions against US officials. The situation also reignites debates about judicial sovereignty and the use of foreign legislation to interfere in other countries’ decisions. Experts, like international law professor Manuel Furriela, argue that the STF’s decisions fall within its jurisdiction and do not justify external sanctions.
- Possible developments:
- Diplomatic crisis impacting trade agreements.
- Pressure for a Brazilian response at the International Court of Justice.
- Debate on the limits of international sanctions against judges.
Context of Moraes’ STF decisions
The US sanctions stem from Moraes’ actions at the STF, particularly in inquiries into fake news, digital militias, and the 2022 coup attempt. As rapporteur, Moraes ordered measures like social media platform bans, preventive arrests, and restrictions on Jair Bolsonaro, including the use of an electronic ankle monitor. These decisions are seen by Bolsonaro supporters as abusive, while the STF defends them as essential to protect democracy.
The offensive against Moraes also reflects tensions with American companies, such as X and Rumble, which faced blocks in Brazil for non-compliance with court orders. These disputes fueled the censorship narrative, exploited by conservative sectors in the US. Despite this, the STF maintains that its actions follow due process and aim to combat misinformation and attacks on institutions.
- Moraes’ judicial measures:
- Blocking of platforms like X and Rumble in Brazil.
- Restrictions on Jair Bolsonaro, including an electronic ankle monitor.
- Inquiries into fake news and the 2022 coup attempt.
Debate on sovereignty and freedom of expression
The application of the Magnitsky Act against Moraes reignites discussions about the limits of national sovereignty and freedom of expression. While the Trump administration accuses Moraes of censorship, Brazil argues that his decisions aim to protect democracy from internal threats. The controversy highlights the complexity of international legislation applied to local contexts, especially in modern democracies.
In Brazil, the sanction was met with indignation by government sectors and civil society, who see it as an attempt at external interference. Meanwhile, Bolsonaro supporters celebrated the decision as recognition of alleged STF abuses. The polarization generated by the case could influence the political landscape, especially with the 2026 elections approaching.
- Points of tension in the debate:
- National sovereignty versus international sanctions.
- Freedom of expression versus combating misinformation.
- Political polarization and impact on the 2026 elections.
Paths to conflict resolution
The Brazilian government has been working behind the scenes to prevent further escalation. Contacts with the US State Department aim to clarify the sanctions’ intentions and negotiate a diplomatic solution. At the STF, the expectation is that the Court will maintain its stance of independence, resisting external pressures.
Internationally, the Moraes case could set a precedent for sanctions against Supreme Court justices, raising questions about judicial autonomy in democracies. Bodies like the International Court of Justice may be involved if Brazil opts for a formal response. Meanwhile, pressure from conservative US sectors, including Eduardo Bolsonaro and Republican lawmakers, keeps the issue in the spotlight.
- Brazilian strategies:
- Diplomatic dialogue with the US to avoid escalation.
- Potential action at the International Court of Justice.
- Reaffirmation of STF independence.