Favoring Pix, preferential trade agreements, ethanol, deforestation are among the topics cited by the United States as reasons for recommending the imposition of 25% tariffs on all imports from Brazil.
On Monday night (1st), the USTR (United States Trade Representative) proposed the imposition of these tariffs, except for goods that qualify as “subject to national security tariffs”.
See below the points cited by the United States for the recommendation.
Legal uncertainty and judicial decisions
The USTR document cites what it calls “secret court orders”, in which Brazilian courts would have issued secret orders for US technology companies – such as X, Meta and Google) – to remove political content and suspend profiles of US residents, prohibiting the disclosure of these orders to those affected.
The recommendation also cites excessive penalties, such as the imposition of substantial daily fines and threats of closing operations in Brazil (as in the cases of Rumble and X) for non-compliance with these court orders.
The United States also mentions the existence of legal uncertainty in the country, referring to the STF decision of June 2025, which declared Article 19 of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet partially unconstitutional, increasing the risk of civil liability for platforms for third-party content.
Pix favor
The USTR claims that the fact that the BCB (Brazilian Central Bank) acts simultaneously as regulator and operator of Pix creates a conflict of interests.
The institution is accused of favoring Pix over US payment services, demanding free payments for individuals, fee limits for companies and mandatory visual prominence in banking applications.
Unfair preferential tariffs
Another point of discomfort for the United States are the preferential tariff agreements maintained by Brazil with Mexico and India in sectors where these countries are already globally competitive – such as vehicles, chemicals and machinery -, which would harm the access of American products that face the full tariff.
Due to these agreements, the USA claims that the share of North American products in the Brazilian market has fallen drastically while that of Indian and Mexican products has increased.
For them, these tariffs create a financial incentive for companies to transfer their production from the USA to Mexico or India to export to Brazil at lower costs.
Still in the wake of trade agreements, the US mentions the end of bilateral cooperation in the case of ethanol.
Brazil abandoned the 2010 reciprocal tariff treatment and imposed an 18% tariff, from 2023, on American ethanol, while Brazilian ethanol continues to have open access to the US market. As a result, US ethanol exports to Brazil have fallen 87% in value since their peak in 2018 due to these barriers.
Fighting corruption
The recommendation also highlights Brazil’s failures in combating corruption, alleging that the Brazilian government failed to properly investigate and prosecute cases of foreign bribery.
They also cite the annulment of evidence and sentences from Operation Lava Jato and the non-transparent renegotiation of leniency agreements are cited as violations of global norms.
The US also claims that companies that operate with corruption in Brazil have impunity, which harms American companies that are required to follow strict anti-corruption laws.
Slowness in granting patents and piracy
The USTR points to a systemic failure to combat the importation and trafficking of counterfeit products, with a lack of dissuasive penalties and an insufficient number of customs officers at borders.
Brazil also has not adhered to the WIPO Internet Treaties, and the US claims that Brazil has widespread piracy of digital content, harming workers in American creative sectors.
The waiting time for patent examination in Brazil is also mentioned, especially biopharmaceuticals. The deadline is around 30% longer than in the USA, with no compensation mechanisms for the delay.
Illegal deforestation
The US claims that Brazil does not adequately audit fraud in the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and fails to prevent land invasion and illegal logging.
Furthermore, it cites unfair competition in agricultural products such as meat, soybeans and corn produced on illegally deforested land, as these products reach the global market at artificially low costs, harming American producers who follow legal and environmental standards.
Finally, the document also alleges flaws in traceability allow timber and livestock from illegal areas to be “laundered” into legitimate supply chains.
