Millions Rally Against Brazil's Censorship Regime: A U.S. Law Could Hold the Key to Its Undoing
Worldwide backlash against progressive lawfare intensifies
This Sunday, millions of Brazilians are expected to flood streets, and beaches, in protest against a totalitarian judicial tyranny that has not only placed a convicted criminal in the country’s presidency but also systematically silences anyone who dares to speak out about it.
This upsurge in activism is a clear indication that efforts by Brazilian congressmen and activists to garner support from the U.S. Congress—and X/Twitter owner Elon Musk—against the progressive lawfare taking over Brazil are gaining traction both domestically and internationally.
At first glance, these efforts might seem futile, since the U.S. Congress has, obviously, no jurisdiction over Brazil. Brazilian judiciary autocrats, long insulated from shame, decency, or accountability, continue their draconian practices, empowered by the belief of being above the law.
However, the tide appears to be turning, following an inquiry by Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-R), chair of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, into Brazilian Court orders received by X/Twitter and his subsequent release of the report “The Attack on Free Speech Abroad and the Biden Administration’s Silence: the Case of Brazil.”
In Brazil, there is a growing debate about the possibility of the U.S. imposing trade sanctions to pressure the censorship regime. But such a move would harm Brazil’s economy, affecting citizens who are already suffering under the Supreme Court’s arbitrary rulings. Additionally, the economic and diplomatic costs of sanctions could make them difficult to justify and support within the U.S.
A more targeted and potentially effective approach would be to enact sanctions directed at key individuals, particularly Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has become the face of the judicial overreach plaguing Brazil at present, following the release of the “Twitter Files Brazil.”
The ‘Global Magnitsky Act’, an American law designed for such circumstances, allows the U.S. government to impose sanctions—including asset freezes and travel bans—on foreign officials guilty of corruption and human rights violations.
Employing this mechanism could significantly impact the tyrants within Brazil’s Supreme Court, curtailing their autocratic impulses without further burdening the Brazilian people.
The Magnitsky Act has long been a key instrument in the global fight against tyranny. In 2018, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Nicaraguan officials, including judges and prosecutors, for human rights abuses when repressing anti-government protests.
In Guatemala, the U.S. State Department took decisive action against the corrupt judicial system, sanctioning criminal court judge Fredy Orellana for levying politically motivated and unfounded charges against journalist José Rubén Zamora, who was sentenced to six years in prison. A case which is not too different from the persecution faced by Brazilian journalists Allan dos Santos and Oswaldo Eustáquio, perpetrated by Justice Moraes.
Orellana had also ordered the suspension of the opposition party Semilla, directly contravening the Guatemalan constitution, which protects political parties from prosecution during elections. An act that draws parallels to the political bans imposed by the Brazilian Court against right-wing figures such as former president Jair Bolsonaro and former congressman Deltan Dallagnol, along with efforts to oust Ibaneis Rocha, the governor of the Federal District (where the capital, Brasília, is located), and Senator Sergio Moro.
It is important to note that Dallagnol rose to prominence as the lead prosecutor in the case against Brazil’s then former, and now current, president Lula da Silva — resulting in a prison sentence for corruption and money laundering, which was later annuled by the Supreme Court on a technicality. Sergio Moro, now targeted by the Regime’s lawfare, was the judge who presided over this high-profile case.
The Act has also been applied against members of the Venezuelan judiciary accused of undermining democracy or engaging in corruption. In 2018, it was used to sanction 17 Saudi officials following the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. A similar case of concern involves Cleriston Pereira da Cunha, who was arrested for protesting outside a Brazilian Army base and tragically died in prison despite the general attorney’s office issuing an opinion supporting his release, ignored by the Court for months.
While the U.S. cannot directly influence Brazil’s Supreme Court, sanctioning a member of the Court such as Justice Moraes for human rights violations and electoral corruption could pressure the Brazilian Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings.
However, a catalyst is necessary for such actions, which may explain the Court’s cautious approach towards Elon Musk. Should the Court ban X/Twitter in Brazil, impose crippling fines leading to its bankruptcy, or unlawfully arrest a company representative in the country, such measures could potentially ignite this process.
The authority to implement sanctions under the Magnitsky Act rests with the President of the United States, Democrat Joe Biden, with the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) responsible for managing these sanctions.
President Biden’s preference for maintaining the current status quo in Brazil—favouring Lula over Bolsonaro or other right-leaning figures—is well-documented. His administration has even faced allegations of supporting efforts to suppress the opposition in Brazil, which could be seen as interfering in Brazil’s electoral processes.
Here lies the importance of the upcoming American elections for restoring democratic order in Brazil. A scenario where Trump returns to the presidency, supported by a Republican-majority Congress, is seen as ideal by those advocating for a more assertive response to Brazil’s judiciary excesses. Interestingly, even isolationist Republicans such as Marjorie Taylor-Greene have voiced their disapproval of the Brazilian judiciary’s repressive tactics.
On the other hand, a Biden reelection could shift Republican focus in Congress. In this scenario, any significant action concerning Brazil, such as investigating the persecution of opposition figures, would likely hinge on its potential connection to Biden—especially if there is verifiable evidence that his administration interfered in Brazilian electoral processes, which could trigger impeachment proceedings.
The likelihood of applying the Magnitsky Act in Brazil currently appears slim. This is not due to a lack of merit in the accusations but rather because such measures are not priorities for the U.S. Government. At the moment, the Biden Administration is focusing on issues critical to his reelection, particularly oil prices. This focus has guided his administration’s decisions to ease sanctions and enhance dialogue with countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.
Furthermore, the sanctions against Russia have proven costly for the U.S. and its G7 allies, and one of the factors leading to Biden’s catastrophic decision to lift sanctions against Iran—a move that has contributed to unprecedented geopolitical instability in the post-Cold War era. Given this context, initiating a new front of sanctions against Brazil—a country that does not directly threaten core U.S. interests and with which Biden maintains favourable diplomatic ties—seems increasingly improbable.
However, Lula’s proximity to regimes like Iran, Russia, and China; illustrated by his decisions to allow the refueling of Iranian warships in Brazilian ports, to purchase Russian oil in defiance of international sanctions, and to support Chinese efforts to undermine the dollar, are creating friction. These actions have drawn sharp criticism from U.S. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, who has accused Lula of parroting Russian and Chinese propaganda.
Additional concerns arise from the lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James against JBS—the Brazilian meatpacking behemoth closely connected to Lula and embroiled in his corruption scandals—and the U.S. refusal to arrest Brazilian journalist Allan dos Santos, despite his inclusion on the Interpol red list at Moraes’s behest.
Finally, Brazil’s diminishing soft power, as evidenced by its declining prestige in international forums due to Lula’s controversial stances on issues like Ukraine and Israel, along with critical coverage from influential establishment publications such as The Economist, The New York Times, Financial Times, and The Wall Street Journal, points to a Brazil increasingly isolated and vulnerable in foreign policy matters, a country that could soon find itself on the losing end of the sanctions game.
I have no idea what you are even talking about. Something to do with attorneys, I guess. I actually am a retired attorney in the state of California but I still have no idea what you are trying to say.
Our benevolent form of martial law with a pretend adherence to our Constitutions created the best form of governance on the planet for decades. The BAR attorneys and Bankers from London started this greedy, power hungry malevolent governance we have. That dates to before Rothschild that perfected this evil.
Had it not turned to malevolent we would have remained like frogs in the pan of water. I did until 2014 and the US Navy determined I was very smart at 18. Not so much anymore. It was thought that the force for the malevolent takeover would come from the military and judiciary. It appears to be coming from the medical adherents to the Josef Mengele School of medicine.
On Oregon the fix by the Esquires, many were attorneys, like Frank Benson that corrupted our Oregon Constitution in 1910. When, ARTICLE VII (Amended) was added, unlawfully, to the Constitution. I’m told not all members of the Oregon State Bar know this. The OSB confers the title of nobility, Esquire, to its members. ARTICLE VII (Amended) is the Judiciary clause the judges and attorneys use to defraud the people. It could be that some Sheriffs and police are unaware of this deception. I’m told that some legislators do not know of this fraud upon the people. Many do not even know what a lawful oath and bond of office is.
LEOs ask for legal help from attorneys and judges and get mis and dis information. They are the ones that are aware of the misprision of felony and they continue to perpetrate this evil on us after 113 years. Although, we know the fix was in from the time of Lincoln. The powers that be on Oregon from 1860 corrupted our government when they agreed to the fraud of Matthew Deady and his two state authorized books, containing the lie that Amendment XIII the anti title of nobility amendment was not part of our statehood documents. Doctor, Mister, Gentlemen, Sir, Lady, Lord and Esquire are all titles of nobility not just honorifics. But, it is homage to the British royalty and nobility a deference to our betters. Did you think it was just being polite like you were taught?
So there it is! They are the two major frauds upon the people both to the advantage of the BAR (British Accreditation Registry) the attorneys of the Oregon State Bar and their ilk on Oregon. The people, our Sheriffs, Legislators and others say, “let me ask my attorney.” The fraud is perpetuated. Unfettered advice from Counsel does not include Oregon State Bar members. As, they all have an oath to an ARTICLE VII (Amended) Court. They are registered or unregistered foreign agents. It’s complicated and people turn off and consider important issues. What is for dinner, is the football game on? Our churches become 501 C3 and give their allegiance to the state before God and their congregation. And so it goes.