The United States government, under Donald Trump’s administration, intensified its criticism of Supreme Federal Court (STF) Justice Alexandre de Moraes, labeling him an “activist judge” and a “malign foreign actor” during a press conference in Washington on Thursday, July 31, 2025. The statement was made by Tommy Pigott, spokesperson for Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who justified the sanctions imposed on Moraes under the Global Magnitsky Act, a tool used to punish foreigners accused of human rights violations and corruption. The measures, announced on Wednesday, July 30, include freezing Moraes’ assets and accounts in the US, as well as banning his entry into the country. The action marks an escalation in diplomatic tensions between Brazil and the US, with the American government signaling that further sanctions against other Brazilian authorities are not ruled out. The justification centers on Moraes’ judicial decisions, which, according to the US, restrict freedom of expression, including orders to remove content from digital platforms. The crisis reignites debates about national sovereignty and the STF’s role.
The sanctions against Moraes represent an unprecedented milestone, being the first time a Supreme Federal Court justice has faced punitive measures of this nature. The decision was published by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), a division of the US Treasury Department, and does not require a judicial process, relying on administrative reports. The Trump administration claims Moraes authorized “arbitrary preventive detentions” and issued secret orders to ban content protected by freedom of expression, affecting American citizens and companies.
The impact of the decision extends beyond the justice, generating reactions in Brazil and abroad. In Brazil’s political arena, the measure was celebrated by STF opponents, while the Lula government and the Court expressed solidarity with Moraes, calling the sanctions an unacceptable interference in national sovereignty.
Reactions in Brazil and support for Moraes
The Brazilian government, led by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, reacted strongly to the sanctions. In an official statement, Lula expressed solidarity with Moraes, stating that attempts at foreign interference in Brazil’s judiciary are unacceptable. The STF also issued a statement, emphasizing that Moraes’ decisions, particularly in the investigation into former President Jair Bolsonaro’s alleged coup attempt, were endorsed by other Court justices.
- Lula government’s stance: The presidential statement described the sanctions as politically motivated by domestic adversaries seeking to destabilize the judiciary.
- STF’s response: The Court defended judicial independence and stated that Moraes’ decisions comply with the Brazilian Constitution.
- International reactions: International law experts question the legitimacy of the sanctions, noting that applying the Magnitsky Act against a Supreme Court justice is an unusual precedent.
The Attorney General’s Office (AGU) announced it would take legal action to challenge the sanctions, though details of the measures have not yet been disclosed.
Origin and scope of the Magnitsky Act
The Global Magnitsky Act, enacted in 2012 during Barack Obama’s administration, is one of the US’s harshest tools for punishing individuals accused of serious human rights violations or corruption. Initially aimed at Russian officials involved in the death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, the law was expanded in 2016 to apply globally.
The act allows for sanctions such as:
- Freezing assets and accounts under US jurisdiction.
- Banning entry into the US.
- Restricting financial transactions with US citizens or companies.
- Inclusion on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) list by OFAC.
Since its expansion, the law has been applied to 672 individuals and entities worldwide, including officials from Russia, China, Nicaragua, and Hong Kong accused of repressing opponents, corruption, or persecuting journalists. Moraes’ inclusion is seen as a politicization of the law, as sanctions against high court judges are rare and typically linked to authoritarian regimes without judicial independence.
Escalation of the diplomatic crisis
Tensions between Brazil and the US have intensified in recent months, particularly following STF decisions in cases involving Trump’s allies in Brazil, such as former President Jair Bolsonaro. The US administration accuses Moraes of leading a “witch hunt” against political opponents, citing investigations into coup attempts and orders to remove content from social media.
Spokesperson Tommy Pigott avoided detailing potential new sanctions, but the mention of the 2026 World Cup, to be held in the US, Canada, and Mexico, raised speculation about travel restrictions for Brazilians. The possibility of broader measures, such as trade tariffs or sanctions against other officials, was also hinted at, though not officially confirmed.
- Trade tariffs: In July 2025, Trump announced 50% tariffs on Brazilian products, in retaliation for what he called unfair trade practices.
- Visa cancellations: On July 18, the US revoked visas for Moraes and other STF justices, except for Luiz Fux, André Mendonça, and Nunes Marques.
- Trump allies’ reactions: Republican lawmakers, such as Cory Mills, have pushed for measures against the STF, claiming Brazil is experiencing a “decline in human rights.”
The escalation of tensions could impact bilateral relations, particularly in areas like trade and international cooperation. Experts warn that using the Magnitsky Act against Moraes may set a precedent for similar actions against other countries, challenging sovereignty norms.
Criticism of the law’s application
International law experts have questioned the legitimacy of the sanctions against Moraes. Adam Keith, director of Humans Rights First, stated that the Magnitsky Act was designed to address severe violations, such as torture or extrajudicial killings, and its use against a judge for judicial decisions is an “unprecedented move.”
Rodrigo Amaral, a professor of International Relations at PUC-SP, described the measure as a politicization of the law, aimed at pressuring Moraes without directly interfering in Brazil’s sovereignty. He argues that accusations of censorship and arbitrary detentions lack robust international evidence.
- Lack of independent investigation: No reports from international organizations confirm the accusations against Moraes.
- Limited impact: The sanctions do not affect the legitimacy of STF decisions, which remain valid in Brazil.
- Risk of retaliation: Brazil may respond with diplomatic measures, such as actions at the International Court of Justice.
Political repercussions in Brazil
In Brazil, the sanction against Moraes sparked polarized reactions. Opposition lawmakers, such as Congresswoman Caroline De Toni (PL-SC) and Senator Carlos Portinho (PL-RJ), celebrated the measure, calling it a response to alleged STF abuses. De Toni described the sanction as an “international response to censorship and political persecution,” while Portinho compared Moraes to “world dictators.”
Conversely, allies of the Lula government and the STF defend the justice’s actions, emphasizing that his decisions were made in the context of investigations into threats to democracy, such as the January 8, 2023, riots. The AGU is evaluating legal measures to reverse the sanctions, while the Foreign Ministry is considering diplomatic responses.
Possible developments
The application of the Magnitsky Act against Moraes places Brazil in a delicate international position. The possibility of new sanctions against other Brazilian authorities keeps the climate of uncertainty alive. The Trump administration, through Rubio and Pigott, reiterated that the US will continue to monitor actions it deems threats to its interests, which could include additional restrictions on Brazilians.
The case also reignites debate about the STF’s role in Brazil. While judiciary critics see the sanctions as validation of their complaints, supporters argue the Court has acted to protect democracy. The political polarization in Brazil, intensified by the measure, could influence the political landscape ahead of the 2026 elections.
- Diplomatic scenario: Brazil may seek support from international allies to counter the sanctions.
- Domestic impact: Polarization between STF supporters and critics is likely to intensify.
- Legal responses: The AGU may appeal to international courts to challenge the sanctions’ legitimacy.
- Trade relations: New tariffs or restrictions could affect Brazilian exports, as already signaled by Trump.
The crisis between Brazil and the US, triggered by the sanctions on Moraes, marks an unprecedented moment of tension in bilateral relations. The US decision to label an STF justice as an “activist judge” and the threat of further penalties signal a confrontation that could have lasting consequences, both diplomatically and in Brazil’s domestic politics.