An article published this Friday (28) by Financial Times states that the decision by United States President Donald Trump to remove the 40% surcharge on Brazilian imports represents a victory for President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. According to the British newspaper, the reversal confirms that, after months of tension between Washington and Brasília, “in plain English: Lula won”.
Four months ago, Trump had announced the increase in tariffs to a total of 50% on Brazilian products in reaction to the investigation into Jair Bolsonaro and Brazilian measures against large US technology companies. Lula responded by defending the institutions and rejecting the pressure. The FT notes that the U.S. government’s shift became explicit when Trump stated that “certain agricultural imports from Brazil should no longer be subject to the additional [de 40%]”.
For the author, Gillian Tett, the movement offers three lessons. The first concerns the US domestic economic environment. According to the text, the White House is showing growing concern about the cost of living, as “recent surveys show that consumer sentiment is falling in parallel with Trump’s approval.” In this context, reducing agricultural tariffs would be a direct way of trying to alleviate prices.
Continues after advertising
The second lesson involves the dynamics of confrontation. The article maintains that “bullies generally respond by force”, citing that countries like China and, now, Brazil have adopted firm stances with relevant results. Lula’s resistance is interpreted as part of this logic.
The FT further argues that it is necessary to distinguish objectives, strategies and tactics when analyzing Trump’s policies. Although the president is described as driven by instincts and a desire to expand US economic and political dominance, his actions would combine internal disputes between advisors, geoeconomic impulses and decisions fraught with cultural, technological and personal factors.
The publication points out that the attempt to use tariffs to pressure Brazil, including the expectation of influencing Bolsonaro’s judicial treatment, fits into the president’s tactical pattern, based on “bullying, threats, melodrama, policy swings, favoritism and announcements that flood the debate”. These maneuvers attract attention, but should not be confused with strategic goals, writes Tett.
According to the article, these tactics do not always work, which fuels the expression “Taco”, an acronym for “Trump Always Chickens Out” (“Trump always yellow”), used by critics to refer to previous retreats. FTthe White House’s ability to abandon movements that generate negative reactions, as in the case of Brazilian tariffs, shows that many of these gestures are transitory in nature. “How do you say Taco Trade in Portuguese?”, ironizes the text.
The author concludes by saying that Lula’s victory sends “encouraging signals” to other countries by showing that “kings are rarely as powerful as they seem”.
