Discussion is not about Trump, Bolsonaro or Supreme Minister, it is about a global scenario in which right, technology and politics are in a constant frictional zone
The application of OMInistro by the US government cannot be reduced to political or ideological interpretations. What is under discussion is the incidence of an international standard created to blame state agents for human rights violations and acts of corruption with effect beyond borders. In today’s article, I analyze, from a strictly legal perspective, what grounds are alleged by the United States to support the decision and what implications this measure projects to the right and global governance.
This distinction becomes necessary because it starts from the media and public opinion reduced the application of the law to a reflection of the good relationship between the president and the former president. This reasoning, besides being superficial, ignores the legal and institutional reach of the magnitsky law. It has been used by different American, Republican and Democratic administrations against agents from various countries, without ideological distinction.
The extraterritorial dimension of judicial decisions
One of the central points of the US legal narrative is the allegation that Minister Moraes would have adopted measures with direct effects on US citizens and companies. The orders issued to platforms such as (former Twitter), and all based in the US, demanding the blockade of accounts and content, were cited by the Foreign Asset Control Agency) as part of an action that goes beyond the Brazilian jurisdiction.
According to the US government, part of these accounts would belong to citizens and journalists protected by the first amendment of the US Constitution. This point moves the analysis to the field of extraterritorial impact.
Judicial orders, accompanied by millionaire fines and penal liability threats to executives from US companies who have resisted determinations, are presented as state acts with direct impact on foreign business. According to the American justification, this element connects to the core of magnitsky law: respond to state measures considered abusive that reach fundamental rights of foreign individuals and companies, even when originated in internal processes of another country.
Another sensitive element is the issuance of pre -trial detention warrants against individuals residing in the US, some with political refugees status. The absence of formal accusation was pointed out as a factor of arbitrariness, especially when associated with passport revocation measures and freezing critics of critics with economic and family ties in US territory.
Protection to Brazilian citizens and refugees in the US
Another axis presented by the US government as a justification is the alleged persecution of US citizens and residents, including political refugees. OFAC described censorship measures as directed not only to Brazilians, but also to American citizens who expressed critical opinions to the Brazilian government on social networks. This argument is presented as a reinforcement of the human rights violation thesis protected by international treaties of which Brazil is a signatory.
In the case of Brazilian refugees residing in the US, there is still a legal aggravating factor according to the American argument. From the 1951 convention and the US legislation itself, any state act that constitutes persecution of recognized refugees or asylum applicants can be treated as a serious violation of human rights. Therefore, the inclusion of journalists and critics with refuge status was highlighted by the US as one of the central points for applying magnitsky law.
Preventive arrests of journalists and critics living in the US without formal accusation are pointed out as evidence of abuse of power with political bias. The inclusion of public figures linked to former President Jair Bolsonaro, such as Allan dos Santos and Eduardo Bolsonaro, in investigations and financial blockages was presented as an indication of political persecution, an argument that historically weighs on the application of magnitsky law.
The State Department, by announcing the revocation of visas of Minister Moraes and family members, expressly mentioned a “US citizens’ censorship campaign on American soil.” This statement was used as the basis to demonstrate the connection between Brazilian judicial measures and the application of the law from the perspective of protection of fundamental rights in foreign jurisdiction.
Implications for Brazil and the institutional debate
Regardless of the merit of Minister Moraes’s decisions, the use of magnitsky law against a member of the Supreme Brazilian Court projects a sensitive debate on sovereignty, jurisdiction and limits of state power in an increasingly digitally interconnected world. When internal decisions reach companies and citizens outside the borders, the risks of normative collision increase. International response in this context can gain more complex legal contours than politicians.
The case exposes an issue that transcends names and circumstances: How far does a national authority reach a scenario in which social networks, data, and voices do not recognize physical boundaries? The message that the US claims to send with the application of the magnitsky law is clear from the perspective presented by the US government itself: when state action, in any country, exceeds limits and reaches fundamental rights of its citizens or companies, there will be legal reaction based on its domestic legislation.
This discussion is not about Trump, Bolsonaro or Moraes. It is about a global scenario in which right, technology and politics are found in a constant frictional zone. Brazil will need to deal not only with the specific case, but with the need to establish digital governance standards that reconcile sovereignty and international responsibility.
When court orders cross borders and play rights from other countries, the debate is no longer political and becomes legal on a global scale. This is perhaps the main message that applying magnitsky law brings to Brazil.
*This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the young Pan.
