The fuel pump is the major focus of attention in the electoral field. Since the and began, on February 28, the price of diesel has increased, according to the ANP. Gasoline already exceeds R$9 in some states.
The closure of the , through which 20% of the world’s resources flow, transformed a distant war with no direct connection with Brazil into a crisis that reached the pockets and, mainly, the table of Brazilians. In an election year, this can have a direct impact on voter preferences.
According to data from , which analyzes more than 100,000 public Telegram groups in real time, the issue of fuel peaked on March 18 and 19, when truck drivers intensified their efforts for a national strike.
Gasoline and diesel dominate, but it is Lula who appears most strongly in the debate, totaling approximately 16.3% of mentions, against 6.4% for Bolsonaro and 3.7% for Trump. In messaging groups, therefore, the fuel crisis is, first and foremost, a government crisis.
Among messages with identifiable political content, 33.9% are directly critical of the Lula government. The dominant narrative points out that there would be a contradiction in the way the tax reduction made by Bolsonaro in 2022 and the tax relief package announced by Lula on March 12 were handled. This line argues that, while the first was treated as an electoral maneuver, the second would have been seen as responsible.
Users, however, do not take into account the difference in context that served as motivation for decisions. Another strong line accuses the government of inefficiency, since, the day after the announcement, Petrobras readjusted the fuel by R$0.38, canceling part of the promised relief. Petrobras, in this case, is also understood to be part of the government.
This frustration doesn’t just come from opposition-aligned groups. The most shared messages include reports of self-employed truck drivers with diesel over R$8 in the Central-West and queues at gas stations in São Paulo. The threat of a strike pushed the debate outside traditional political bubbles, as it could affect the daily lives of Brazilians.
On the other hand, 26.1% of the messages defend the government’s measures, while 26.2% attribute the blame for the crisis to Trump and the USA. These narratives complement each other, as they first list the oil price as the cause of the spike, then praise Planalto’s actions, such as the zeroing of federal taxes, the R$0.32 per liter tax and inspections at more than a thousand gas stations. The government’s most forwarded message argues that the Brazilian people cannot pay the price of the war.
The problem for the government is the perception and also the timing of the crisis. Even with the release of the package, which can reach , the consumer, at that moment, perceives the price rising, not falling. The delay between the announcement and the actual effect on the bomb fuels distrust and gives ammunition to the opposition.
already competitive in the second round polls, addresses the issue electorally without needing to propose concrete alternatives.
What the groups reveal is that the fuel crisis has already gained attention in the political debate. Despite the actions being taken, in the digital environment reality is created by whoever arrives first with the most appropriate narrative.
With a new truck drivers’ assembly scheduled for the 26th, the government’s negotiating capacity and the assembly’s decision will serve as a thermometer of what the tone of the 2026 race should be.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
