Protesters demonstrate against Trump's steep tariffs in Brazil
The demonstrations on Friday erupted in cities like Sao Paulo and Brasilia, as residents voiced their anger on the first day of Trump's latest tariff campaign.
Brazil is slated to see some of the highest US tariffs in the world.
Last month, on July 9, Trump announced he planned to hike the import tax on Brazilian products to 50 percent, in response to a list of political complaints, chief among them the prosecution of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.
A far-right leader and former army captain who served as president from 2019 to 2023, Bolsonaro faces trial for allegedly attempting to orchestrate a coup d'etat against his successor, current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
A federal police investigation culminated in a 2024 report that suggested Bolsonaro and his allies sought to undermine the results of the 2022 election, which he narrowly lost to Lula.
Among the possibilities they reportedly considered was declaring a 'state of siege' to suspend civil liberties and force the military to intervene. That, in turn, would pave the way for new elections.
Another idea that was allegedly floated was to poison Lula and shoot Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who had denounced Bolsonaro for spreading false information about the 2022 election process.
De Moraes ultimately oversaw the investigation into Bolsonaro's alleged coup attempt, making him a prominent target for Bolsonaro's supporters.
Trump counts himself among them. In his July 9 letter announcing the tariffs, he drew a line from his tariff hike to Brazil's treatment of Bolsonaro, alleging that the prosecution was politically motivated.
'The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his Term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace,' Trump wrote.
'This trial should not be taking place. It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!'
Trump also accused the Brazilian Supreme Court of censoring right-wing voices and launching 'insidious attacks on Free Elections'. Trump himself has been accused of seeking to undermine the results of the US's 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden.
To defend Bolsonaro, Trump has gone so far as to sanction de Moraes, freezing his US-based assets and revoking his visa.
But critics have accused Trump of seeking to interfere with Brazil's judicial process. Some have described the tariff hike and the sanctions against de Moraes as a pressure campaign to force Brazilian prosecutors to drop the case against Bolsonaro.
On the streets of Sao Paulo on Friday, protesters burned a pair of effigies — one representing Trump, the other Bolsonaro, positioned together in an embrace. Placards waved, some featuring Trump with devil horns protruding from his forehead and cartoons of de Moraes flicking Trump his middle finger.
A banner, meanwhile, featured the slogan: 'Sovereignty is not negotiable.' Brazilian flags abounded on signs and T-shirts.
De Moraes himself issued a statement, saying Trump's sanctions would not interfere with his duties. 'This rapporteur will ignore the sanctions applied to him and continue working as he has been doing.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
16 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Rwanda agrees to accept ‘third-party' migrant deportations from the US
Rwanda has confirmed it will accept deported migrants from the United States, as President Donald Trump continues to push for mass deportation from the North American country. On Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo, acknowledged that the African country had agreed to receive up to 250 deported individuals. Rwanda is now the third African country, after South Sudan and Eswatini, to strike a deal with the US to accept non-citizen deportees. 'Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation,' Makolo said in a statement obtained by the Reuters news agency. But the Trump administration's efforts to rapidly deport migrants from the US have raised myriad human rights concerns, not least for sending people to 'third-party countries' they have no personal connections to. Some of those countries, including Rwanda, have faced criticisms for their human rights records, leading advocates to fear for the safety of deported migrants. Other critics, meanwhile, have blasted Trump for using African countries as a 'dumping ground' for migrants with criminal records. In this week's statement, Makolo appeared to anticipate some of those criticisms, underscoring that Rwanda would have the final say over who could arrive in the country. 'Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement,' she said. 'Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade.' Trump's mass deportation campaign In 2024, Trump successfully campaigned for re-election in the US on the premise that he would expel the country's population of undocumented immigrants, a group estimated to number around 11 million. But many of those people have been longtime members of their communities, and critics quickly pointed out that Trump lacked the infrastructure needed for such a large-scale deportation effort. In response, the Trump administration has surged money to immigration-related projects. For example, his 'One Big Beautiful Bill', which was signed into law in July, earmarked $45bn for immigration detention centres, many of which will be run by private contractors. An additional $4.1bn in the law is devoted to hiring and training more officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with another $2.1bn set aside for bonuses. But the Trump administration has made expelling migrants from the country a top priority, prompting legal challenges and backlash to the rapid pace of such deportations. Critics say deported migrants have been denied their right to due process, with little to no time allotted to challenge their removals. Then, there are the cases where undocumented migrants have been deported to 'third-party countries' where they may not even speak the language. Within weeks of taking office in January, Trump began deporting citizens of countries like India, China, Iran and Afghanistan to places like Panama, where migrants were imprisoned in a hotel and later a detention camp. Trump also accused more than 200 men, many of them Venezuelan, of being gang members in order to authorise their expedited removal to El Salvador in March. Lawyers have since cast doubt on Trump's allegations, arguing that many of their clients were deemed to be gang members based on little more than their tattoos and fashion choices. El Salvador reportedly received $6m as part of a deal to hold the men in a maximum security prison, the Terrorism Confinement Centre or CECOT, where human rights abuses have been documented. The men were ultimately released last month as part of a prisoner exchange with Venezuela, but a federal court in the US continues to weigh whether the Trump administration violated a judge's order by allowing the deportation flights to leave in the first place. Deportations to Africa In May, the Trump administration unveiled efforts to start 'third-party' deportations to countries in Africa as well, sparking further concerns about human rights. Initially, Libya was floated as a destination, and migrants were reportedly loaded onto a flight that was prepared to take off when a judge blocked its departure on due process grounds. The Libyan government later denied reports that it was willing to accept deported, non-citizen migrants from the US. But the Trump administration proceeded later that month to send eight migrants on a flight to South Sudan, a country the US State Department deems too dangerous for Americans to travel to. That flight was ultimately diverted to Djibouti, after a judge in Massachusetts ruled that the eight men on board were not given an adequate opportunity to challenge their removals. Seven of them hailed from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico and Myanmar. Only one was reportedly from South Sudan. The Trump administration said all eight had criminal records, calling them 'sickos' and 'barbaric'. A spokesperson pledged to have them in South Sudan by the US Independence Day holiday on July 4. The US Supreme Court paved the way for that to happen in late June, when it issued a brief, unsigned order allowing the deportation to South Sudan to proceed. The six conservative members of the bench sided with the Trump administration, while the three left-leaning justices issued a vehement dissent. They argued that there was no evidence that the Trump administration had ascertained the eight men would not be tortured while in South Sudan's custody. They also described the deportations as too hasty, depriving the men of their chance to appeal. 'The affected class members lacked any opportunity to research South Sudan, to determine whether they would face risks of torture or death there, or to speak to anyone about their concerns,' the justices wrote, calling the government's actions 'flagrantly unlawful'. In mid-July, the Trump administration also began deportations to Eswatini, a tiny, landlocked country ruled by an absolute monarchy. It identified the five deported individuals as hailing from Laos, Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba and Yemen. 'This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back,' administration spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote on social media. Lawyers for the five men have since reported they were denied access to their clients, who are being held in a maximum-security prison. Cozying up to Trump? Little is known so far about the newly announced deportations to Rwanda. It is not yet clear when deportation flights to Rwanda will begin, nor who will be included on the flights. Reuters, however, reported that Rwanda will be paid for accepting the deportations in the form of a grant. The amount is not yet known. Rwanda also has set parametres for whom it may accept. No child sex offenders will be allowed among the deportation flights, and the country will only accept deported individuals with no criminal background or whose prison terms are complete. But the deportation announcement continues a trend of Rwandan authorities seeking closer relations with the Trump administration. In June, President Trump claimed credit for bringing peace between Rwanda and its neighbour, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). He invited leaders from both countries to attend a ceremony at the White House and sign a peace deal. Critics, however, noted that the deal was vague and did not mention Rwanda's support for the M23 paramilitary group, which has carried out deadly attacks in the DRC. The deal also appeared to pave the way for Trump to pursue another one of his priorities: gaining access to valuable minerals in the region, like copper and lithium, that are key to technology development. In an interview with The Associated Press news agency, Rwandan political analyst Gonzaga Muganwa said that his government's recent manoeuvres seem to reflect the mantra that 'appeasing President Trump pays'. Muganwa explained that Tuesday's agreement to accept migrants from the US will strengthen the two countries' shared bond. 'This agreement enhances Rwanda's strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,' he said.
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
One year post Hasina: What's next for Bangladesh?
The Stream examines how Bangladesh handles political uncertainty a year after youth protests toppled Sheikh Hasina. We explore how Bangladesh is navigating political uncertainty one year after youth-led protests ended Sheikh Hasina's long rule. In 2024, young Bangladeshis took to the streets, demanding change and forcing a political reckoning. A year later, the country sits in a delicate balance. We examine what the future looks like through the eyes of its young people. Presenter: Stefanie Dekker Guests: Apurba Jahangir – Deputy press secretary in the interim government of Bangladesh Ifti Nihal – Content creator
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What is the missile treaty Russia has walked out of – and why?
Russia on Monday announced it will stop abiding by a decades-old nuclear missile treaty with the United States, raising fears of the return of a Cold War-style arms race. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, signed in 1987, had put a moratorium on the deployment of short and medium-range missiles between the world's leading military powers. US President Donald Trump withdrew from the treaty in 2019, during his first term. Russia remained part of the agreement until Monday. It had pledged not to deploy such weapons as long as Washington did not do so – though the US has repeatedly accused Moscow of violating the pact. The Russian move comes days after Trump ordered the repositioning of two nuclear submarines in response to what he called 'threatening comments' made by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, currently deputy chair of Russia's Security Council. In recent weeks, the Trump administration has ramped up pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine. He has also targeted India with tariffs and threats for buying Russian oil. Meanwhile, the US special envoy for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, is scheduled to visit Moscow this week as part of efforts to end the Ukraine-Russia war. So why has the Kremlin withdrawn from the treaty, and will it affect defence agreements between two of the major powers? What is the INF disarmament treaty? The treaty was inked by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, ending the deadlock of the Cold War arms race. It banned possessing, producing or test-flying ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500km (311 to 3,418 miles). More than 2,600 missiles from both sides were destroyed as part of the treaty that covers both nuclear and conventional warheads. It does not cover air-launched or sea-launched weapons. Washington demolished 846, and Moscow 1,846 as part of the disarmament efforts. What justification did Russia give for withdrawing from the decades-old treaty? Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Monday cited the movement of US missile platforms in Europe, the Philippines and Australia as a direct threat to Moscow's security. 'Since the situation is developing towards the actual deployment of US-made land-based medium- and short-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, the Russian Foreign Ministry notes that the conditions for maintaining a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of similar weapons have disappeared,' the ministry said in its statement. The ministry said that Moscow would end the moratorium to maintain strategic balance and counter the new threat. Medvedev, the former president, said the Russian decision is the result of NATO countries' 'anti-Russian policy'. 'This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with. Expect further steps,' he posted on X on Monday. Medvedev was also engaged in a heated social media exchange with Trump last week after the US president served an ultimatum to Russia to end the war in 10 days. In response, Trump on Friday ordered two nuclear submarines to be moved to 'the appropriate regions'. The Kremlin has, however, urged caution on 'nuclear rhetoric'. 'It is obvious that American submarines are already on combat duty. This is an ongoing process, that's the first thing,' Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters. 'But in general, of course, we would not want to get involved in such a controversy and would not want to comment on it in any way,' he added. 'Of course, we believe that everyone should be very, very careful with nuclear rhetoric.' Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had in December warned against what he called 'destabilising actions' by the US and its NATO allies. Russia has also threatened to respond against a planned deployment of US missiles in Germany from 2026. When did the US withdraw from the treaty and why? The US withdrew from the INF treaty in 2019 during Trump's first term, citing Russian non-compliance. Trump had accused Moscow of breaching the treaty by developing and deploying the land-based, nuclear-capable Novator 9M729 missile system, dubbed SSC-X-8 by NATO. Moscow said the missile's range (500km) was shorter than the threshold set in the 1987 treaty. Trump had also cited the development of such missiles by China, which was not a party to the agreement. Under former US President Barack Obama, Trump's predecessor, Washington had moved to boost its military capabilities in the Asia Pacific to counter China's military power. But during his first seven months in power, Trump has largely been consumed by his tariff wars against allies and rivals alike. He has rolled back a steep tariff he had imposed on China in early April, even as a report by US intelligence agencies in March said that Beijing is now the US's top military and cyber-threat. And in recent days, he has turned his attention to Russia, trying to pressure it to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine. The West believes that Russia's Oreshnik ballistic missile – which it fired in Ukraine last November – violates the INF treaty. The missile has a range of 500km (311 miles). Last week, Putin announced the deployment of the missile in Belarus, which shares a 1,084km (674 miles) border with Ukraine. Russia also revamped its nuclear doctrine last year, formally lowering its threshold for use of nuclear weapons. Which other disarmament agreements have the two countries withdrawn from? The US and the Soviet Union – the two most militarised nations at the time – were engaged in an arms race until the collapse of the communist nation in 1991. The two sides, however, signed a number of agreements, such as the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the INF, as part of arms control measures. President George W Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, which was aimed at keeping Russia and the US from creating missile defences. During his first term in office, Trump also withdrew from the 1992 Open Skies Treaty in 2020. Two years later, Russia followed suit, walking out of the treaty that allowed countries to fly over each other's territory to conduct unarmed observation flights. Which security agreements are still in place between the US and Russia? The New START Treaty, which stands for 'Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty', remains the last major arms control agreement between Russia and the US. The treaty signed in 2010 caps the number of strategic nuclear warheads the two countries can deploy. It came into force in February 2011. Under the agreement, the two sides committed to the following: Deploying no more than 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads and a maximum of 700 long-range missiles and bombers. A limit of 800 intercontinental ballistic missiles in deployment. Each side can conduct up to 18 inspections of strategic nuclear weapons sites yearly to ensure the other has not breached the treaty's limits. But in 2023, Putin announced Moscow was suspending its participation in the pact, accusing Washington of non-compliance with its provisions and of trying to undermine Russia's national security. That treaty expires next year. The Russian decision came months after the US stopped exchanging data on its nuclear weapons stockpiles under the New START Treaty.
