A 50% rate on Brazilian products announced by the president of the United States, Donald Trumpwith a forecast of effective August 1, can provoke Billionaire losses to Brazil. However, the measure still bumps into legal barriers inside and outside the borders of the US country.
According to a technical note signed by researchers Angelo Gurgel, Cicero Lima and Leonardo Munhoz, from the FGV Agro Bioeconomic Center, the measure can cause a retraction of up to 0.41% in the Brazilian Gross Domestic Product in case. At the same time, there are recent precedents in US courts that reinforce the illegality of the unilateral action of the executive.
“These rates represent an affront to the norms of international trade and probably to the internal legality of the US legal system itself,” the authors say, in the study “economic and legal aspects of the Brazil-United States Tariff Conflict.”
American jurisdiction and presidential power
From a legal point of view, the imposition of tariffs by the Trump government contradicts basic principles of the international trade system, such as the most favored nation clause and the ban on arbitrary commercial restrictions. The technical note also points out that these measures not only repeat standards condemned by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in previous years, but aggravate them.
In the American internal level, the legality of tariffs is also fragile. Laws such as Trade Expansion Act (1962), Trade Act (1974) and International Emergency Economic Powers Act (1977) only authorize exceptional tariff actions by proving concrete threat to national security.
According to the authors, the argument that there is commercial imbalance or political interest is not sustained legally. In fact, two recent precedents strengthen this understanding:
Continues after advertising
| – V.O.S. Selections, Inc. x United States: Judged on May 28, 2025, the International Trade Court considered illegal 50% tariffs imposed by Trump before. The ruling stated that the president went beyond the powers granted by the International Emergency Economic Powers ACT (IEEPA), by acting without clear legislative background and without proof of economic emergency. |
| – Raimondo x United States: The Supreme Court stated that the executive can only adopt measures of great economic impact based on specific and unambiguous legislation. Generic terms such as “national security” or “public interest” are not enough. This understanding consolidates a jurisprudence that limits the abusive interpretation of presidential powers, reinforcing the separation between executive and legislative. |
“The has already declared illegal similar rates imposed by Trump, abuse of presidential powers based on IEEPA. Cases such as the above show that the US judiciary is more rigorous against unilateral actions without clear authorization from Congress,” the researchers say.
Direct impacts on agro
The US is the second main destination of. In 2024, the country accounted for 12% of the total sold by Brazil abroad, representing US $ 40.37 billion. Of this total, about 30% (US $ 12.1 billion) originates in agribusiness – highlighting products such as coffee in grain, beef and wooden chemical pastes.
According to researchers at FGV Agro, the 50% rate should cause a sharp drop in foreign sales of these goods. “Food exports could reduce by up to 75%, as Brazilian products would be considerably more expensive compared to the international market,” the note says.
Continues after advertising
The effect would be felt in all regions of Brazil, but especially in, where retraction in sales to the US market can reach 75.7%. Still, the researchers point out that higher prices would reduce domestic consumption and production volume.
Estimated consumption losses would be up to $ 13 billion in Brazil and US $ 18.4 billion in the US, in a retaliation scenario. Under this scenario, Brazilian GDP could shrink 0.41%, while the United States would have a lower impact of 0.08%.
The technical note also draws attention to the current tariff imbalance. The US usually applies low rates on Brazilian agribusiness products. There are exceptions, such as orange juice (10.94%) and sugar (19.79%). Brazil, in turn, charges higher rates over certain imported inputs, such as lactoalbumin (14%), used for animal nutrition.
Continues after advertising
Damage before and after the fare
Even though the tariff does not go into force, experts warn that the simple announcement of measures of this magnitude already harm the Brazilian economy. “The climate of uncertainty in international trade, generated by the tariff war scenario, generates damage to the commercial relationship of both countries,” the authors write.
The note recommends that countries affected by American tariffs act in a coordinated manner in international forums, such as the WTO, to contain the advance of unilateral measures and protect multilateral rules built over decades. “It would be appropriate for the affected countries to assume a collective posture to confront the problem,” concludes Gurgel, Lima and Munhoz.
