A CBP Mystery Points to Lawfare
Cellphone data, credit card receipts and the passenger manifest for a commercial flight that Filipe Martins took in Brazil on Dec. 31, 2022, prove that he couldn't have entered the U.S. late on the night of Dec. 30, 2022, as CBP Orlando first alleged in March 2024. When these facts were brought to the attention of the Homeland Security Department, it agreed that Mr. Martins couldn't be in two places at one time. In June 2024 it took down a bad entry log. This month it suddenly reappeared on CBP Orlando's website.
The truth matters to Mr. Martins because he's being investigated in Brazil by Supreme Court justice Alexandre de Moraes for playing a role in an alleged Bolsonaro conspiracy to overthrow President Luiz Inácio 'Lula' da Silva. Since there is no Brazilian record of Mr. Martins exiting Brazil, as required by law, Mr. de Moraes says Mr. Martins's entry into the U.S., as alleged by CBP Orlando, shows he sneaked out of the country and could do it again. Mr. Martins was arrested in February 2024. Since March 2024 Mr. de Moraes has been using false CBP claims to brand Mr. Martins a flight risk.
Naturally Mr. Martins's lawyers want the record corrected. They also want to know who created the phantom entries and when. CBP refuses to share that information.
For U.S. national security reasons, the Homeland Security Department should also want to know. There is no obvious American motivation for inventing a Martins trip when it didn't happen. But someone working inside CBP on behalf of Brazilian political interests opposed to Mr. Bolsonaro would have a motivation.
With scant evidence to support his theory that Mr. Bolsonaro was plotting a coup d'état against Lula, Mr. de Moraes is relying on plea deals to build his case. Things aren't going well. In audio, leaked in March, the prosecution's star witness can be heard blaming coercion for the testimony he gave against Mr. Bolsonaro. At a pretrial hearing on Thursday, Mr. Martins told the court he believes his detention, at times under inhumane circumstances, is aimed at achieving similar results. When accused by critics of heavy-handed actions, Mr. de Moraes says he's defending Brazilian democracy.
The legal record at a U.S. port of entry for every traveler is an electronic I-94. Mr. Martins's lawyer, Ana Bárbara Schaffert, told me last week that when she was working to get her client released in April 2024, she emailed CBP Orlando to request the Martins I-94 for the alleged trip. Orlando replied that it had no Martins I-94 for that date and that his latest entry into the U.S. had been at New York's Kennedy Airport in September 2022. Since Mr. Martins had properly informed Brazilian authorities of that trip, she was satisfied that the matter had been resolved.
Two weeks later, Mr. Martins hadn't been released. So Ms. Schaffert called the CBP office at Kennedy to get a copy of the aforementioned September 2022 I-94. An official there surprised her by telling her that the computer was now showing a Martins I-94 for Dec. 30, 2022, in Orlando. Mr. Martins's name was misspelled on the I-94 and the document number was from a passport reported lost in 2021.
Mr. Martins was imprisoned for 183 days, long after the fraudulent I-94 was deleted from the CBP webpage and the Brazilian court had been provided the correction. In August 2024 he was released from prison but is under domiciliary arrest in Ponta Grossa, Paraná state. Mr. de Moraes hasn't acknowledged the false travel narrative. He continues to rely on the CBP's never-corrected 'travel history' webpage—which is not a legal record—to justify Mr. Martins's detention. He may not leave his city of residence. He wears an ankle monitor and is banned from speaking to the press or using social media.
Mr. Martins's lawyer received no response from a complaint she filed with the Homeland Security inspector general. She also filed two Freedom of Information Act requests asking for the logs that would show who created the entry records and when. She says a 'generic answer' came back claiming they 'didn't have the information to respond.' In January she filed a lawsuit in Florida against Homeland Security and CBP to secure the I-94 document logs. In an effort to settle, officials produced them but redacted the name of the person who created them and the dates they were created. DHS told me last week it couldn't comment due to 'pending litigation.'
This month CBP gave Brazilian prosecutors another assist by reposting the fake Martins I-94 on its website, complete with the misspelling of Mr. Martin's first name and the lost passport number.
What's worse? The crime or the coverup?
Write to O'Grady@wsj.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 minutes ago
- Business Standard
'Let them sail': Russian lawmaker shrugs off Trump's nuclear sub threat
A senior Russian lawmaker has said that Russia has enough nuclear submarines at sea to handle any potential threat from the two US subs ordered into position by President Donald Trump, news agency PTI reported. Viktor Vodolatsky, a member of the Russian Parliament (Duma), told state news agency TASS that there is no need for a response from Russia to Trump's decision. "The number of Russian nuclear submarines in the world's oceans is significantly higher than the American ones, and the subs that US President Donald Trump ordered to be redirected to the appropriate regions have long been under their control,' he said. 'So no response from the Russian Federation to the American leader's statement about the submarines is required." Vodolatsky also said: 'Let the two US subs sail, they have been in the crosshairs for a long time now.' Trump orders US nuclear submarines on alert On Friday, Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social that he had ordered the movement of two US nuclear submarines to 'appropriate regions'. He said the decision was in response to what he described as 'extremely provocative statements' made by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, now the deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council. In his post, Trump wrote: 'Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev... I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that." Russian minister backs peaceful approach, warns against direct conflict Responding to comments made by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a Fox News interview, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov welcomed the US position that a direct military clash with Russia must be avoided. 'We wholeheartedly concur with this position. Such shared understanding has been facilitated through constructive Russian-American dialogue,' Lavrov said. 'While Europeans are hysterically pushing for Ukraine's integration into NATO... Marco Rubio recently reaffirmed a responsible stance, explicitly stating that a direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia must be avoided," he said. Trump slams Medvedev, India and Russia In another post on Thursday, Trump attacked both India and Russia, calling them 'dead economies' and suggesting they could 'take their dead economies down together'. He also criticised Medvedev. 'Russia and the USA do almost no business together. Let's keep it that way. Tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he's still President, to watch his words. He's entering very dangerous territory!' Trump said. In response, Medvedev dismissed Trump's remarks, saying they showed nervousness. 'If some words from the former president of Russia cause such a nervous reaction from the supposedly mighty president of the US, then Russia is doing everything right,' he wrote on Telegram. He also reminded Trump of Russia's Cold War-era nuclear capability, designed to retaliate even if the country's leadership were destroyed in a first strike. Mocking Trump's interest in pop culture, Medvedev added: 'He should remember his favourite films about 'The Walking Dead' and think about how dangerous a 'dead hand' can be, even one that doesn't exist in nature,' ending his post with a laughing emoji. (With agency inputs)
Mint
35 minutes ago
- Mint
Donald Trump thinks he's winning on trade, but America will lose
More than 100 days after President Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day", the new global trading order is becoming clear. It is a system of imperial preference. Canada has angered the president, partly by planning to recognise Palestine as a state, and so it faces a duty of 35%. Because Mr Trump reckons that exporters unfairly cheat America, on July 31st he said he would impose 'reciprocal" tariffs on many trading partners, ranging from 10% to 41%. Meanwhile, in order to ward off tariff threats the European Union, Japan and South Korea have all struck deals with Mr Trump, where they promise to open their markets and invest hundreds of billions of dollars in America, in return for levies on their exports of 15%. A seductive idea is settling in that America is winning from all this. The president has, after all, got his biggest trading partners to make deals that are closer to his demands than theirs. Financial markets have shrugged off higher duties, the real economy shows little sign of damage and all the time tariff revenues are rolling in. But that thinking is deeply misguided. The game is not over. And it is one that America cannot win. For all the crowing about how Trump Always Chickens Out, the president has pressed forward with tariffs. America's effective tariff rate is due to rise to 18% on August 7th, according to the Yale Budget Lab, nearly eight times the prevailing rate last year, and back to levels last seen in the Depression. The way MAGA paints it, this is a triumph for Mr Trump, because America's trading partners are eating higher tariffs, helping US Customs rake in nigh on $30bn in revenues a month. Unfortunately, that idea is gaining currency even outside America. Soon after the EU struck its deal with Mr Trump, opponents in European capitals lamented the fact that the bloc would have to pay. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of trade economics. Years of experience show that tariffs do not harm the sellers of goods as much as they harm the buyers. The more the president raises tariffs, the more his own compatriots will be deprived of choice at low prices. Even though foreign suppliers are lowering their prices more steeply than after Mr Trump's first-term tariffs, analysts at Goldman Sachs reckon that fully four-fifths of tariff costs have so far been borne by American firms and consumers. Just ask Ford, or GM: the carmakers reckon they paid $800m and $1.1bn in tariff costs, respectively, in the second quarter of this year alone. What of the muted economic and financial market reaction so far? The IMF has raised its projections for both global and American economic growth this year, compared with forecasts it made in April. Although it has fallen since Mr Trump signed his order, the S&P 500 remains nearly 12% higher than it was on Liberation Day; the dollar, though down, has strengthened in recent weeks. The answer is that the economy is being buffeted by various forces, including heavy stockpiling before tariffs came into effect—delaying the pain, but not eliminating it—as well as an extraordinary boom in artificial-intelligence-based capital spending. According to Renaissance Macro Research, capital investments in AI have contributed more to America's gdp growth in the past two quarters than all of consumer spending. Partly propelled by this, stockmarkets have gone from strength to strength. Perhaps, too, investors believe that companies will adapt to higher tariffs. The incentive to route trade through places with relatively low duties will be strong—even though Mr Trump has vowed to punish such 'trans-shipment" with tariffs of 40%. An uncomfortable dynamic has also set in: because investors think that the president will eventually chicken out, they are emboldening him to press ahead. As he does so, however, the long-term costs to the economy will mount. In the name of fairness Mr Trump is discarding a multilateral system in which tariffs were charged on the same goods, regardless of where they came from. In its place is a bilateral system where products can face differential rates depending on their origin. These new rates are not just higher; they are subject to ceaseless bargaining over almost any issue. Just this week, those issues included the Brazilian courts' pursuit of a Trump ally and a border war between Thailand and Cambodia. Because tariff policy is set by one man alone, the bargaining will be subject to lobbying and presidential whim. Because of who he is, Mr Trump will consider exemptions when he is next flattered, and threaten duties when he is next displeased. American shoppers will pay the price. Once they were spoilt for choice, as both domestic and foreign producers competed to sell to them. Now the companies that succeed will do so not only because they are the most innovative, but also because they are the cleverest at playing the system. And remember that a ratchet effect is at work here. When—or rather, if—future presidents want to restore tariffs to their original level, they will be met by furious lobbying from American firms that got used to sheltering behind tariff barriers and have thereby become uncompetitive in world markets. Everything about this is harmful. And, whatever Mr Trump says, nothing about it is fair.
The Hindu
35 minutes ago
- The Hindu
No formal discussions held yet: Centre on U.S. F-35 jets query in Lok Sabha
The joint statement following the meeting of Prime Minister Narendra Modi with President Donald Trump in February mentions that the U.S. will undertake a "review" of its policy on releasing fifth-generation fighter jets such as the F-35 and undersea systems to India and "no formal discussions" have been held as yet on this issue, the government said on Friday (August 1, 2025). The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) was asked whether any "official proposal" was received from the U.S. regarding the potential sale of F-35 fighter jets to India following the announcement by the U.S. President in February. Minister of State for External Affairs Kirti Vardhan Singh in a written response to the query told Lok Sabha that the India-U.S. joint statement following the Modi-Trump meeting on February 13 "mentions that the U.S. will undertake a review of its policy on releasing fifth generation fighters [such as the F-35] and undersea systems to India. No formal discussions have been held as yet on this issue." The MEA was also asked about the role of American diplomats to stop hostilities between India and Pakistan; and whether the government has reviewed the relationship between U.S. military assistance proposals and autonomy in terms of India's foreign policy in view of the strategic implication especially in a conflict scenario involving third-party mediation. Mr. Singh in his response said, between April 22, when the Pahalgam terrorist attack happened and May 10, there were "a number of diplomatic conversations" with various countries at different levels, including with the U.S. "All our interlocutors were given a common message that India's approach was focused, measured and non-escalatory," he said. "With specific reference to the United States, it was conveyed to Vice President J. D. Vance on May 9 that India would appropriately respond if Pakistan launched a major attack. The discussion to cease military action took place directly between India and Pakistan through the existing channels of communication between the two-armed forces, and it was initiated at Pakistan's request," Mr. Singh added. As regards any proposal for third party mediation, our longstanding position remains that any outstanding issue with Pakistan will be discussed "only bilaterally". This has been made clear to all nations, including by the Prime Minister to the U.S. President, the Minister said. "The India-U.S. Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership is anchored in mutual trust, shared interests, goodwill and robust engagement between our citizens. The partnership has also benefited from growing strategic convergence and cooperation," he added. "The Government of India closely evaluates all its external partnerships, including those in the defence and strategic domains, through the prism of India's national interest and commitment to strategic autonomy," Mr. Singh said.
