The First Panel of the (Supreme Federal Court) begins judging this Tuesday (16) the criminal action against the impeached federal deputy (PL-SP), accused of acting to pressure Brazilian authorities and influence the progress of processes related to the attempted coup d’état after the 2022 elections.
Son of the former president (PL), Eduardo is accused by the (Attorney General’s Office) of adopting sanctions against Supreme Court ministers and economic measures against Brazil as a way of putting pressure on the court.
The trial will be held in person in the plenary session of the First Panel of the STF, in Brasília, but without the presence of the defendant. Currently living in the United States, the former deputy did not attend the interrogations and will be represented at the session by a defender from the Federal Public Defender’s Office (DPU).
On the eve of the trial, vice-president of the STF and rapporteur of the case, rejected requests from the DPU to recognize the nullity of the process. With this, the case will be examined by the four members of the First Panel, which has one member less since the minister’s departure: Moraes, , and .
A possible draw would be beneficial for the defense, as it would favor the defendant.
Start of the process
The investigation was opened in May 2025 after representation from the Attorney General’s Office. At the time, he began to publicly defend sanctions against Brazilian authorities and seek political support for measures adopted by the American government.
According to the PGR, he worked together with journalist Paulo Figueiredo, also a defendant in the action regarding the coup plot. Both would have mobilized contacts in the United States to defend punishments against Supreme Court ministers and pressure Brazilian institutions.
The measures were defended in interviews, live broadcasts and publications on social media.
For the PGR, the action had a specific objective: to influence the trial of Bolsonaro and the others accused of the coup attempt.
The complaint was unanimously received by the First Panel of the STF last November. At the time, the ministers understood that there were sufficient elements to open criminal proceedings.
The crimes attributed to Eduardo
The complaint attributes to Eduardo Bolsonaro: coercion during the process, obstruction of the investigation of a criminal organization, attempt to abolish the democratic rule of law and attack on national sovereignty.
The main axis of the accusation is coercion during the process, provided for in article 344 of the Penal Code, with a penalty of one to four years in prison, in addition to a fine. According to the Attorney General’s Office, the former deputy tried to pressure Brazilian authorities by articulating international sanctions against members of the STF and encouraging measures with the potential to cause economic losses to the country.
The accusation of attempted abolition of the democratic rule of law, whose penalty varies from four to eight years in prison, is related to the assessment that these actions sought to constrain the regular functioning of institutions. The charge of obstructing the investigation of a criminal organization arises from the alleged attempt to interfere in investigations conducted by Brazilian authorities; The crime carries a penalty of three to eight years in prison.
The crime of attacking national sovereignty, provided for in article 359-I of the Penal Code and punishable by imprisonment for three to eight years, is linked to the allegation that Eduardo sought to encourage the actions of foreign authorities against public agents and institutions in the country.
What the accusation says
The Attorney General’s Office claims that Eduardo and Paulo Figueiredo acted deliberately to create an environment of pressure on STF ministers responsible for the processes involving Bolsonaro.
According to the complaint, the articulations sought to obtain personal sanctions against judges and economic measures against Brazil as a way of interfering in ongoing trials.
When voting to receive the complaint, Alexandre de Moraes stated that there were signs that the former deputy intended to create a scenario of institutional instability to embarrass members of the court.
The minister pointed out as examples the suspension of visas of Brazilian authorities, the application of the Magnitsky Law against members of the Judiciary and the adoption of economic measures by the United States.
“There is relevant evidence that Eduardo Nantes Bolsonaro’s conduct was aimed at creating an institutional and social environment of instability, with the application of increasing sanctions to Brazilian authorities and economic losses to Brazil,” wrote Moraes.
For the rapporteur, these actions were intended to pressure ministers to decide in favor of former president Bolsonaro.
What the defense says
Eduardo is represented by the Public Defender’s Office because he did not appoint lawyers to act in the case.
The defense maintains that the action should be annulled due to Moraes’ alleged lack of impartiality. According to the DPU, the minister appears simultaneously as a judge and as one of the victims named by the prosecution.
The argument, however, had previously been rejected by the First Panel itself in cases related to the coup attempt.
On the merits, the defense states that the complaint “confuses political action with coercive power”. According to the DPU, Eduardo is not a member of the American government, does not hold public office in the United States and has no power to determine foreign policy decisions in that country. It also states that Eduardo should have been summoned by notice instead of a letter rogatory, “since he was abroad, in a known place”.
The defense still maintains that their demonstrations are protected by parliamentary immunity and the constitutional right to freedom of expression.
Another argument presented is that any sanctions imposed by American authorities result from sovereign decisions of the United States, and not from the will of a Brazilian parliamentarian.
Why the trial is relevant
The case represents one of the main developments in the investigation into the attempted coup d’état and could define the limits of criminal liability of Brazilian authorities for actions carried out abroad.
Ministers will have to decide whether seeking support from foreign authorities to pressure national institutions can be considered a form of threat capable of characterizing coercion during the process.
The decision should also serve as a parameter for future cases involving the actions of Brazilian political agents before foreign governments and the use of instruments of international pressure in internal disputes.
Regarding eligibility, if convicted, Eduardo Bolsonaro would fall under the Clean Record Law, being prevented from contesting elections.
