U.S. President Donald Trump's announced measure against Brazil lacks any justification from a trade balance perspective.

by Evandro Menezes de Carvalho

U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to impose a 50-percent tariff on all Brazilian exports to the United States starting Aug. 1 has created strong backlash in Brazil, with critics condemning both the way it was announced and the rationale offered by the White House.

Trump has consistently demonstrated his belief that diplomatic protocols are a waste of time. He genuinely sees force as the most effective form of persuasion and lacks the patience of a seasoned diplomat skilled in the subtle art of negotiation between sovereign nations.

Yet in international relations -- especially those intended to be peaceful and lasting -- even when the subject is unpalatable, a guest must be treated with due respect, in the hope that he or she departs reasonably satisfied -- or at the very least, not as a newly made adversary.

Trump's negotiation style is abrasive and disrespectful. Moreover, his announced measure against Brazil lacks any justification from a trade balance perspective.

As Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has pointed out, data from the U.S. government itself show that the United States has accumulated a surplus of 410 billion U.S. dollars in goods and services trade with Brazil over the past 15 years. In this context, Trump's claim that the U.S.-Brazil relationship "has been far from reciprocal" sounds more like a provocation than a credible statement.

So why impose a blanket tariff increase on Brazilian products without any clear justification? The answer lies not in bilateral trade issues, but rather in Brazil's domestic politics -- specifically, the investigations led by Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) into the financing of anti-democratic activities, attacks on the electoral system, and disinformation campaigns supported by the far right.

The STF has ordered media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Meta, and Telegram to comply with court rulings by removing illegal content, identifying users promoting coups or threatening Brazil's Federal Constitution, and blocking repeat offenders spreading disinformation. This has frustrated major tech companies, which often seek to operate with minimal regulation in developing countries and frequently resist complying with local court orders. The move has also frustrated Trump, as the global far-right movement heavily relies on unregulated social media platforms to push its political agenda through the widespread dissemination of fake news.

Trump's second motive for imposing a 50-percent tariff on Brazil stems from President Lula's political stance. Beyond advocating for stricter regulation of big tech, Lula has aligned himself with international leaders calling for reduced reliance on the U.S. dollar. He expressed these positions during the 17th BRICS Summit. The BRICS members' combined gross domestic product -- measured by purchasing power parity -- has now surpassed that of the G7 nations. Should BRICS pursue this foreign policy agenda, it would pose a significant challenge to U.S. global hegemony.

Trump has launched a trade war against Brazil. However, this announced measure seems less about punishing Brazil and more about testing Lula -- to assess the nature of his political leadership, specifically whether he will show deference to the United States, as his predecessor Bolsonaro once did, or stand firm as a leader who commands respect and serves the Brazilian people.

In Lula's case, the latter clearly applies. There is no doubt about it -- something Trump should have realized. But what else could one expect from someone who once asked Liberian President Joseph Boakai where he learned to speak English so well, seemingly unaware that English is the official language of his esteemed guest's country?

Editor's note: Evandro Menezes de Carvalho is a professor of international law at the Fluminense Federal University and the Getulio Vargas Foundation, Brazil.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Xinhua News Agency.