In a striking move, the U.S. Treasury Department has imposed sanctions on a Brazilian Supreme Court Justice overseeing the high-profile prosecution of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.
According to Politico, this action, announced on July 30, 2025, centers on Justice Alexandre de Moraes and reflects the Trump administration's efforts to intervene in the trial of Bolsonaro, a close ideological ally, citing concerns over human rights and free speech.
The sanctions target de Moraes, who is leading the legal proceedings against Bolsonaro, accused of plotting a military coup to reverse his defeat in the 2022 Brazilian presidential election.
The U.S. action comes under the Global Magnitsky Act, a law that enables the government to penalize individuals worldwide for human rights violations. Treasury officials assert that de Moraes has misused his judicial authority, engaging in what they describe as unwarranted detentions and stifling free expression.
"De Moraes is responsible for an oppressive campaign of censorship, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions — including against former President Jair Bolsonaro," said Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. "Today’s action makes clear that Treasury will continue to hold accountable those who threaten U.S. interests and the freedoms of our citizens," Bessent added. The sanctions, announced on Wednesday, July 30, 2025, freeze any assets de Moraes might hold in the U.S., including indirect business interests.
Additionally, the measures bar U.S. individuals from engaging in any transactions with the Brazilian judge. The U.S. State Department has also imposed visa restrictions on de Moraes and his family as part of this broader policy.
These steps follow other interventions by the Trump administration, including threats of 50 percent tariffs on Brazil earlier in July 2025, aimed at influencing Bolsonaro’s trial.
In a direct communication to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, President Donald Trump emphasized his past relationship with Bolsonaro during his first term. Trump’s letter underscored concerns about the ongoing prosecution of the former Brazilian leader. Bolsonaro’s son, Eduardo, has actively lobbied for his father, maintaining ties with Donald Trump Jr. to bolster support.
Despite these efforts, Brazilian President Lula has firmly rejected U.S. demands, declaring he will not tolerate external pressure. Brazil’s embassy in Washington has not issued a response to requests for comment on the matter. An unnamed Brazilian official noted that complying with U.S. requests would breach the nation’s constitution, as the judiciary operates independently from the executive branch.
The official further explained that no mechanism exists to stop the trial, except through a comprehensive amnesty law. This legal standoff highlights the tension between the two nations over judicial sovereignty. The sanctions add to existing criticism of de Moraes from U.S. conservative circles, particularly regarding his handling of cases involving social media platforms.
In 2024, de Moraes ordered a temporary block of the social media platform X in Brazil, citing non-compliance with digital safety regulations. He has also mandated the removal of accounts on X that promote hate speech or illegal content. These decisions sparked a lawsuit from conservative media entities, including Trump Media, amplifying the international dispute.
The clash over de Moraes’s actions on X has fueled broader debates about free speech and judicial power. For the Trump administration, the sanctions signal a willingness to use economic and diplomatic tools to protect allies like Bolsonaro. However, the move risks straining relations with Brazil, a key partner in Latin America, at a time of shifting global alliances.
As the trial of Bolsonaro continues, the U.S. intervention raises questions about the boundaries of international influence over domestic legal systems. Brazil’s commitment to judicial independence remains a sticking point in negotiations with the U.S. government.
The outcome of this dispute could set a precedent for how nations address cross-border legal and political conflicts in the future.