USTR report frames legal acts as trade barriers and points out risks for American companies in Brazil
An investigation by the USTR (United States Office of Commerce, in Portuguese) considered acts of the Brazilian Judiciary as direct evidence that the Brazilian government was harming North American companies. The document proposes the application of taxes on goods coming from Brazil. Read , in English (PDF – 915 kB).
In total, the investigation details 8 fronts of accusation, 6 of which involve decisions that originate from the Federal Supreme Court, although the text does not mention the Court by name on all occasions.
The document was published on Monday (June 1, 2026), at the end of an investigation opened by order of President Donald Trump (Republican Party) on July 15, 2025. The tariffs depend on public hearings and the procedure provided for in Section 301 of the Trade Law of 1974. The final decision on the application of the surcharge will be up to Trump.
LAVA JATO OPERATION
The 1st decision linked to the STF is mentioned by name in the report and involves minister Dias Toffoli. In September 2023, he ordered the annulment of the evidence of a leniency agreement signed by the Operation Lava Jato task force with a construction company, which resulted in the dismissal of more than 100 derivative lawsuits.
For the American government, the episode serves as an argument to claim that Brazil is failing in the fight against corruption. The text states that Toffoli’s move brought disadvantages to US companies, which remain subject to strict integrity rules to operate and compete in the Brazilian market.
The report cites Transparency International, which classified the annulment as Brazil’s most serious violation of the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) Anti-Bribery Convention.
CIVIL MILESTONE
The second manifestation attributed directly to the STF is that of June 26, 2025, when the plenary declared Article 19 of the Marco Civil da Internet (Law nº 12,965/2014) partially unconstitutional. The original provision established that digital platforms would only be civilly liable for damages resulting from third-party content if they failed to comply with a prior court order.
The USTR argues that the change worsens the scenario of regulatory uncertainty and risk, forcing companies to choose between incurring heavy liabilities or carrying out preventive takedown of legitimate content. In a footnote, however, the text highlights that the body does not make a “determination of actionability” commercial based specifically on this June 2025 decision.
BRAZILIAN COURTS
The report lists 4 other restrictive commercial actions with major regulatory impact targeting US-based digital platforms, such as X, Meta and Google. Although the Washington document refers generically to “Brazilian courts” (“Brazilian courts”), without directly citing the STF, the measures described correspond to decisions that were processed or approved by the Court:
- Suspension of Rumble: the report cites the in Brazil, in force since February 2025, after the company refused to comply with a confidential court order to censor the profile of a US resident (case linked to minister Alexandre de Moraes);
- Blocking of The service was only reestablished after paying a fine of US$5 million;
- Censorship of podcaster in Florida: the investigation mentions orders issued in 2023 and 2024 for the removal and demonetization of accounts of a Brazilian influencer residing on North American soil. The text points out that, in 2025, profiles were only released under the condition that content considered offensive remained inaccessible;
- Volume of Meta restrictions: USTR compiled data from the transparency report of the owner of Instagram and Facebook indicating that, between July and December 2025, Brazil ordered record content restrictions, reaching around 9,800 items in compliance with local court orders.
PIX
In addition to the judicial arm, the Executive and Brazilian authorities were included in the Section 301 report. The USTR concluded that the Central Bank adopts public policies that place American electronic payments companies in a “unfair disadvantage”. Washington criticizes the dual role of the BC and the system, which forces the promotion of the national tool and competing taxes.
They complete: the breakdown of reciprocity in the ethanol market; partial-scope tariff agreements with India and Mexico that hurt U.S. exports; INPI (National Institute of Industrial Property) delay in biopharmaceutical patents (up to 109 months); and ineffective supervision against illegal deforestation in the CAR (Rural Environmental Registry).
HEARINGS AND DEADLINES
Trump’s tariff offensive comes after the Republican suffered legal defeats in the US Supreme Court, which invalidated the use of IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) to . As a result, the White House began using country-specific investigations under Section 301, which requires compliance with procedural rites:
- Until June 22, 2026: deadline for sending requests to participate in the public hearing;
- Until July 1, 2026: deadline for sending written defenses and comments to the USTR;
- July 6, 2026: official USTR public hearing held in Washington;
- July 15, 2026: deadline for Brazil to respond and legal date for the eventual entry into force of the tariffs.
The sanction proposal frustrates the attempt at rapprochement between Lula and Trump, who on May 7 had established a 30-day deadline for negotiations. Greer stated that he is holding constructive discussions with the Brazilian cabinet, but “substantial differences” persist.
If the 25% surcharge goes ahead, items considered strategic for the US itself, such as beef, coffee, fertilizers, medicines and aeronautical equipment, are exempt from the collection list.
