The government’s decision to identify O and O as terrorist organizations was supported by 59% of Brazilians, who agreed, totally or partially, with the classification.
At the same time, three out of four (74%) reject the possibility of the US acting against members of these factions in Brazilian territory without authorization from the national government, according to a Datafolha survey.
The apparent paradox reveals less an adherence to American foreign policy than that it has everything to guide the 2026 elections.
This is because of Brazilians, behind health (20%) and ahead of the economy (11%), according to a Datafolha survey from December 2025.
In addition, a survey by the Brazilian Public Security Forum (FBSP) last May.
Today’s survey interviewed 2,004 people aged 16 or over on June 17 and 18, in 139 municipalities. The margin of error is plus or minus two percentage points. The survey is registered with the (Superior Electoral Court) under number BR-09956/2026.
In total, 83% of Brazilians claim to be aware of the two largest factions in Brazil, and 72% consider themselves well (35%) or more or less (37%) informed on the subject.
For sociologist Renato Sérgio de Lima, director-president of the Brazilian Public Security Forum, support for the classification of factions as terrorists expresses “a cry for help from a population that has had its lives kidnapped and routines altered by the actions of factions”.
“It’s the feeling that at least something is being done”, he says when comparing , in which 122 people were killed in the Penha and Alemão complexes.
At the same time, the perception of the Donald Trump administration’s real intention with the classification is polarized. While 50% agree that the United States wants to fight the factions to “help the Brazilian population”, practically the same proportion (47%) states that Washington uses the problem as an “excuse to rule over Brazil”.
Belief in the North American helping hand is greater among those who prefer the PL (81%) and vote for Flávio Bolsonaro (77%). The suspicion that the classification is a subterfuge for US interference in the country is greater among those who prefer the PT (69%) and vote for Lula (63%).
On the other hand, the idea of a concrete threat to national sovereignty breaks these boundaries, and 74% disagree that the US has the right to attack members of factions within Brazil without notifying the Brazilian government.
For political scientist Maria Hermínia Tavares, professor emeritus at the Faculty of Philosophy, Letters and Human Sciences at USP and columnist for Sheetthe result shows that positions are strongly adhered to political and candidate preferences.
“The question is what will weigh most when voting: the perception that these organizations are terrorists or that the US is meddling where it shouldn’t”, she asks, for whom the survey data also shows that polarization coexists with a strong feeling of national autonomy.
“This theme touches on patriotism and the idea that Brazil is capable of dealing with its problems on its own”, he states.
The survey shows that 54% believe that Flávio had an influence on the American decision. Among these interviewees, 57% consider that this influence was negative for Brazil, while 37% say it was positive.
For Leandro Piquet, coordinator of Esem-USP (School of Multidimensional Security linked to the USP Institute of International Relations), the results also reveal the effects of political polarization on the interpretation of the episode.
“Many people buy the idea that treating a faction as a terrorist group means being tougher on crime and using more militarized measures with greater penalties”, he assesses. “But, in Brazil, this doesn’t even make sense because there is no tougher legislation against terrorism than against organized crime.”
According to Piquet, after the approval of the Anti-Faction Law (15,538/2026), which toughened penalties for members of these factions, Brazil today has “more means and instruments to investigate and punish organized crime than to investigate and punish terrorist organizations”.
For him, the research is bad for the left-wing camp because it shows that the public’s discourse and attitudes are more favorable to the right-wing position.
Lima assesses that support for the classification of factions as terrorists reflects the federal government’s difficulty in communicating policies that already exist or are under construction.
“Classifying as terrorist and toughening penalties leaves the economic and money laundering dimension that supports criminal organizations in the background”, he assesses.
Maria Hermínia observes that, while Flávio Bolsonaro “bets on the idea that being tough against terrorists is important”, the PT made “a turnaround in both the federal and state disputes and says that it has another possible policy”.
“Now it is a question of each party’s credibility and its ability to convince voters that it will give due importance to the problem of crime and factions and will be more effective against them.”
