Lula asks Trump to stop Marco Rubio's 'prejudice' in US-Brazil talks, seeking an end to crippling 50% tariffs and sanctions on Brazilian officials.
Bridging the Atlantic Divide: Lula's Direct Plea to Trump to End the 'Prejudice' Barrier
Por: Carlos Santos
A seemingly insurmountable political and diplomatic hurdle was, for a moment, reduced to the simplicity of a phone call and a direct request. The recent phone conversation between Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and former US President Donald Trump transcended mere diplomatic courtesy, transforming into a frank exchange on one of the most contentious issues currently straining Brazil-US relations: the perceived prejudice and hard-line stance of US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, towards Brazil's current government and judiciary. For me, Carlos Santos, this development signals a pivotal, albeit fragile, attempt to bypass escalating tensions and reset a crucial bilateral partnership that has been dangerously polarized. The underlying conflict centers on US-imposed tariffs and sanctions, allegedly a response to the legal battles involving Trump's ally, former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, and the actions of Brazil's Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes. Lula's move to appeal directly to Trump—an act described by both sides as "friendly" and "extraordinarily good"—is a pragmatic chess move aimed at defusing the situation and ensuring that the high-stakes negotiations between the two major democracies proceed on a level playing field, "sem preconceito" (without prejudice).
 |
| Lula concede entrevista exclusiva à Reuters no Palácio da Alvorada 06/08/2025 REUTERS/Adriano Machado |
The Diplomatic Battlefield: Removing the Obstacle
The current friction between Brazil and the US is not a simple trade dispute; it’s a deeply political one. Marco Rubio, designated as the US negotiator, has been a vocal critic of the Brazilian Supreme Court, particularly Justice Alexandre de Moraes, following the conviction of Jair Bolsonaro. Rubio's actions, including the imposition of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods and sanctions on Brazilian officials—which the Brazilian government has labeled as "threats"—have been widely viewed as an aggressive intervention in Brazil's domestic affairs. According to a report from InfoMoney, Lula's request to Trump was explicit: to ask Rubio to "talk to Brazil without prejudice." The implication is clear: the current US approach, spearheaded by Rubio, is rooted in an ideological bias that makes genuine, constructive dialogue nearly impossible. Lula's direct line to Trump, a move to circumvent the "bureaucracy" and the hard-line diplomat, underscores the depth of the distrust and the urgency of the economic threat posed by the tariffs. The success of this high-level intervention will determine whether the relationship can pivot back towards cooperation or if it will be further ensnared in the politics of its two largest right-wing figures.
🔍 Zoom on the Reality
The reality of the Brazil-US relationship is marked by a deep geopolitical tension exacerbated by personal politics. Marco Rubio is seen in Brazil as the "hard-line" US interlocutor, an ally of the Brazilian far-right, whose "animosity to the Lula government has intensified," as noted by CNN Brasil analysis. This is not just a diplomatic disagreement; it is a direct confrontation on the issue of sovereignty and judicial independence. The US sanctions and tariffs were framed as a response to what Rubio and his allies call a "witch hunt" against the former Brazilian president and his supporters. The Lula administration, in turn, has staunchly defended the independence of the Brazilian Judiciary, insisting that Brazil "will not accept being tutored by anyone."
The direct call to Trump, who is running for a new presidential term, reflects a necessary, though risky, political maneuver. Lula recognized that Trump, the principal architect of the tariffs, holds the key to their removal, irrespective of Rubio's ideological alignment. This move implicitly acknowledges the personalization of foreign policy that has defined the US approach under Trump, where relationships are often negotiated peer-to-peer, bypassing traditional diplomatic channels. Lula's move is a bid to separate the economic negotiation—focused on lifting the damaging tariffs—from the political posturing. The Brazilian government has even been preparing a contingency plan, including R$ 30 billion in credit lines for affected producers, and has begun seeking new commercial partners as a potential retaliation, based on the Economic Reciprocity Law, signaling that Brazil is prepared for escalation if dialogue fails. The political reality is that a cooperative relationship between the two largest democracies in the Western Hemisphere is essential for regional stability and global trade, yet it is currently held hostage by a deeply partisan feud.
📊 Panorama in Numbers
The stakes in the US-Brazil trade dispute are massive, cutting across diverse economic sectors. A look at the numbers quickly illustrates why Lula is so keen on lifting the 50% tariffs and restarting a constructive dialogue.
| Metric | Value/Data | Source/Context |
| Total US-Brazil Trade (2024) | $127.4 billion in goods and services | USAFacts data, making Brazil the 17th top US trading partner. |
| US Exports to Brazil (2024) | $78.4 billion in goods and services | US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). |
| US Imports from Brazil (2024) | $49 billion in goods and services | BEA. The US has a significant trade surplus with Brazil. |
| US FDI in Brazil (2022) | $228.8 billion | US remains the number one source of Foreign Direct Investment in Brazil. |
| Top Brazilian Exports to US | Mineral fuels, Iron and Steel, Machinery, Aircraft, Coffee | US Census Bureau/Trading Economics (2024 data). |
| Tariff Impact on Exports | 18% reduction in exports to the US | CNN Brasil notes that the Trump tariff package led to this reduction, with China absorbing part of the redirected volume. |
| Brazilian Trade Surplus with US | $410 billion over the last 15 years | Lula mentioned this figure to Trump, arguing the US has no deficit with Brazil to justify the tariffs. |
The data confirms that the US is a critical market for Brazilian products, especially high-value-added industrial and manufactured goods. The tariffs are not merely symbolic; they directly impact the flow of Mineral fuels, Iron and Steel, and Aircraft components—key sectors in Brazil's economy. The fact that the US holds a massive long-term trade surplus with Brazil, as emphasized by Lula, powerfully undermines the economic rationale for the tariffs. If the US argument for tariffs is generally to protect domestic industries against trade deficits, the Brazilian case appears politically motivated, turning the economic data into a political weapon. This numeric panorama highlights the vulnerability of the Brazilian economy to US policy decisions and the urgent need to normalize the trade relationship, free from judicial and political "prejudice."
💬 What They Are Saying
The dialogue between Lula and Trump, and the ensuing geopolitical dynamic with Marco Rubio, has triggered a wave of commentary across the political spectrum, both in Brazil and the US.
The Lula administration has characterized the call as "extraordinarily good" and "very friendly." Lula himself expressed surprise at Trump's cordiality, suggesting that the two leaders developed a good "chemistry." The official narrative focuses on the immediate goal: the US agreeing to discuss the elimination of the 50% tariffs and sanctions. Lula has emphasized that the exchange of personal phone numbers with Trump marks a new, less bureaucratic chapter: "We pick up the phone, call each other, and put the issue on the table."
On the US side, Donald Trump affirmed the positive nature of the call, stating: "I had a great conversation with the president of Brazil, who is a good man... Yes, we will start doing business." This language suggests an openness to a deal, prioritizing commercial pragmatism over the political hostilities embraced by Marco Rubio.
Marco Rubio and his allies, who are seen as interlocutors of the Bolsonarismo movement in the US, maintain a hard-line stance. They continue to view the actions of the Brazilian judiciary, specifically Justice Alexandre de Moraes's handling of cases related to former President Bolsonaro, as a violation of due process. Following Bolsonaro's conviction, Rubio had reportedly declared that the US would "respond accordingly," a move that led directly to the imposition of sanctions and tariffs. This faction views the Lula-Trump direct channel with concern, admitting a "setback" but still betting on Rubio to maintain pressure and sanctions.
The overall consensus among political analysts is that the direct negotiation is a pragmatic lifeline but remains fragile. It's a high-stakes bet that Trump's interest in securing a commercial victory and perhaps setting a stage for a future presidential meeting will outweigh Rubio's ideological resistance and the concerns of the American right-wing lobby. The key sentiment is one of cautious optimism tempered by the knowledge that the trade tensions are inextricably linked to a domestic Brazilian political drama.
🧭 Possible Paths
The diplomatic crossroads faced by the US and Brazil present several potential paths, each with significant implications for the future of the relationship:
The Pragmatic Reset (Lula's Ideal Path): This path sees Trump, motivated by a desire for a visible "win" and commercial negotiation, instructing his teams to decouple the economic discussion from the political/judicial conflict championed by Rubio. This would involve the swift removal of the 50% tariffs and sanctions as a goodwill gesture. Lula's economic team would then solidify new trade and cooperation agreements. This path is the most beneficial for Brazil, allowing the country to proceed with its domestic political and judicial processes without external economic duress. The "prejudice" would be set aside in favor of a commercial modus vivendi.
The Conditional Dialogue (The Likely Middle Ground): In this scenario, Trump agrees to a phased removal of the tariffs, but the negotiations—led by Rubio—will continue to be conditioned on a tacit or explicit understanding regarding the treatment of Bolsonaro's allies. The "prejudice" remains a factor, perhaps shifting from overt sanctions to subtle diplomatic pressure. Brazil would regain some economic stability but would continue to face political interference attempts, placing the Lula government in a constant defensive posture regarding judicial independence.
The Stalemated Escalation (Rubio's Hard-Line Path): Despite the Lula-Trump call, the US diplomatic team, under Rubio's influence, maintains the tariffs and sanctions. They argue that the US must take a strong stand against perceived threats to democracy and political opposition in Brazil. In this case, Brazil is forced to implement its retaliation measures, seeking new commercial partners and potentially imposing its own tariffs on US goods (based on the Economic Reciprocity Law), leading to a full-blown trade war and the deepest diplomatic crisis between the two nations in decades. This is the least desirable outcome for both countries' economies.
The choice of path will hinge on the internal political dynamics in the US, particularly which political calculation—commercial expediency or ideological solidarity with the global right—prevails in Trump’s camp.
🧠 For Thought...
Lula's direct appeal to Trump to ask Marco Rubio to negotiate "without prejudice" is a profound moment for reflection on the nature of modern diplomacy and sovereignty. When a nation's president must appeal over the head of a powerful foreign official to the official's ultimate authority, it highlights a dangerous trend: the weaponization of trade policy for political and ideological ends.
We must ask ourselves: Is it acceptable for a global power to use economic tools, such as tariffs, to dictate the outcomes of another sovereign nation's independent judiciary? The answer, unequivocally, should be no. Brazil is a large, stable democracy with a robust, albeit controversial, legal system. To impose a 50% tariff and sanctions on officials—a financial penalty that harms innocent Brazilian businesses and workers—is not constructive diplomacy; it is an act of punitive interventionism.
Furthermore, the situation forces us to consider the role of personal relationships in international politics. Lula and Trump, ostensibly ideological opposites, have found a transactional, "friendly" channel of communication, bypassing the hostility of their subordinates. This suggests that in the current geopolitical landscape, personal rapport, or "chemistry" as Lula put it, can be more effective than institutional foreign policy structures. While effective for crisis management, this personalization of power undermines long-term, stable diplomatic processes. For the Brazilian people, the question remains: should the stability of our external economic relations depend on the goodwill of a foreign leader's direct phone call, or on the strength and neutrality of our shared diplomatic and commercial institutions? The incident serves as a stark reminder that even the largest democracies must fiercely protect their economic and judicial autonomy from the pressures of ideologically-driven foreign policy.
📚 Point of Departure
Understanding the current tensions requires us to look beyond the immediate headlines and consider the deeper historical and political context. The current crisis is essentially a collision between the Lula administration's non-aligned, South-South cooperation-focused foreign policy and the Trump-era's preference for transactional, personalized diplomacy coupled with an ideological solidarity with the global right-wing.
Historically, US-Brazil relations have been complex, oscillating between cooperation and contention. The current dynamic is unique because the core of the disagreement lies not in traditional trade imbalances or geopolitical security, but in the internal political prosecutions of a former president. For the US right-wing, supporting Jair Bolsonaro and criticizing the Supreme Court is an extension of a global ideological battle. For the Lula government, defending the Supreme Court's action, however controversial, is paramount to defending the principle of Brazilian judicial independence and national sovereignty.
This ideological clash has overshadowed critical areas of bilateral cooperation, such as environmental protection (where the Lula administration has made strides, reducing Amazon deforestation by 46% between 2022 and 2024) and clean energy (Brazil's electricity mix is nearly 90% renewable). The "prejudice" that Lula speaks of isn't just a personal aversion; it is an ideological blindness that prevents the US from engaging Brazil constructively on shared, non-partisan interests. The starting point for resolving this crisis must be a mutual commitment to institutional respect, recognizing that judicial autonomy is non-negotiable, and that economic sanctions should not be the tool of choice for settling political scores. The path back to stability begins with the US acknowledging Brazil's right to manage its own domestic legal affairs without economic coercion.
📦 Box Informativo 📚 Did You Know?
The Geopolitical Weight of Brazil in Global Trade
Did you know that despite being temporarily eclipsed by trade tensions, the United States is Brazil's second-largest trading partner, and Brazil is the world's eighth-largest economy?
The economic ties are much deeper and more intertwined than the recent political spats suggest. The US is not only a crucial destination for Brazilian exports but also the single largest source of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the country.
Investment Colossus: In 2022, US FDI in Brazil reached $228.8 billion, representing a substantial 20% growth. This investment is heavily concentrated in high-value sectors such as financial services, manufacturing, and telecommunications, highlighting the US commitment to Brazil's future economic development.
The Export Basket: Brazilian exports to the US are not just commodities; they include advanced manufactured products. Key exports include semi-finished iron and steel products, aircraft and aircraft parts, and civil engineering equipment. The US is actually the top destination for Brazil's value-added goods, purchasing a record $29.9 billion in manufactured products in 2023.
Trade Surplus Context: As President Lula noted in his call with Trump, the US has historically held a massive trade surplus with Brazil, accumulating to over $410 billion in the last 15 years. This fact refutes the narrative that the US is being unfairly penalized in trade with Brazil and underscores the primarily political nature of the recent tariffs.
This data demonstrates that the bilateral relationship is fundamentally robust and strategically important, suggesting that the recent trade "tarifaço" is a temporary political anomaly rather than a reflection of deep-seated economic conflict. The sheer volume of mutual trade and investment makes a prolonged diplomatic breakdown financially unsustainable for both nations.
🗺️ From Here, Where To?
The conversation between Lula and Trump has fundamentally altered the trajectory of the diplomatic crisis. From here, the path forward must focus on rebuilding trust and establishing a resilient framework for dialogue that is impervious to ideological bias.
First, the immediate goal is the dismantling of the 50% tariffs and sanctions. This is the key concession Brazil needs to move forward. The ball is now in Washington's court, and the response from Trump’s team, particularly Marco Rubio, will serve as the first concrete test of the phone call’s success. If the tariffs remain, the "friendly" conversation was nothing more than a political facade.
Second, Brazil needs to diversify its trade relationships strategically, a process already underway. While the US is a vital partner, the over-reliance on a single market makes Brazil vulnerable to political fluctuations abroad. By actively seeking new partners and strengthening ties through initiatives like BRICS and South-South cooperation, Brazil can build a diplomatic shield against future punitive actions. The shift toward a "peripheral realism"—a strategy that balances relations with global powers while prioritizing national development and regional integration—will become more crucial than ever.
Third, there must be an institutionalization of the direct dialogue mechanism established by Lula and Trump. While the personal phone exchange is useful, it should be formalized into a high-level Strategic Dialogue focused on economic, environmental, and security cooperation. This institutional structure would ensure continuity and depersonalize the relationship, preventing a single political figure like Rubio from derailing vital, long-term national interests. The future of this relationship hinges on whether it can mature beyond the current political drama and be anchored in mutual respect for sovereignty.
🌐 On the Net, Online
"O povo posta, a gente pensa. Tá na rede, tá oline!"
The direct call between Lula and Trump was an instant social media phenomenon, showcasing the rapid intersection of old-school diplomacy with the viral nature of digital political commentary. The public reaction reveals a mixture of relief, sarcasm, and geopolitical analysis:
The Meme Economy: The phrase "a chemical reaction occurred" (as Lula described his first brief encounter with Trump at the UN) quickly became the ultimate meme currency. Images of the two leaders embracing or smiling, often accompanied by ironic captions, dominated the feed. This popular reaction lightened the mood but also underscored the absurdity of high-stakes diplomatic relations being defined by personal "chemistry."
The Bolsonaro Echo Chamber: Allies of former President Bolsonaro expressed immediate disappointment and worry online. The narrative shifted from celebrating Marco Rubio’s hard-line as an ideological victory to expressing concern that Trump was "abandoning" his ally for a pragmatic deal with Lula. This reaction reveals the fear within the Brazilian far-right that their international leverage, heavily reliant on a potential Trump presidency and Rubio’s intervention, may be eroding.
The Critique of Interventionism: A significant volume of posts focused on the issue of sovereignty. Commentators, ranging from academics to ordinary citizens, criticized the US use of tariffs as a tool of political pressure. The widespread sentiment was one of indignation: the idea that Brazil's judiciary could be "tutored" by a foreign secretary of state was broadly rejected, reinforcing the government's official stance that Brazil is an independent nation. The conversation online forced a critical look at how external political loyalties attempt to interfere with domestic legal processes.
The social media whirlwind surrounding the phone call confirms that foreign policy is no longer confined to diplomatic rooms; it's a live, public spectacle where every statement and gesture is immediately subjected to popular critique and satire. The digital response highlighted both the gravity of the economic threat and the deeply politicized nature of the Marco Rubio obstacle.
🔗 Knowledge Anchor
The ongoing saga between Brazil and the US, intensified by the actions of Marco Rubio and the direct appeal from Lula to Donald Trump, represents a crucial moment for global political and economic stability. To fully grasp the nuances of the diplomatic maneuvering, the economic pressures, and the ideological clashes that define this conflict, understanding the domestic policy decisions on both sides is essential. The outcome of these negotiations will not only affect trade but will also set a precedent for how global powers interact with the judicial systems of sovereign nations. For a deeper understanding of the economic strategies at play and the Brazilian government's confidence in navigating these turbulent waters, including its stance on inflation amidst the crisis, clique here to continue reading the in-depth analysis from my perspective, Carlos Santos.
Final Reflection
The request made by Lula to Trump—to ask Marco Rubio to talk to Brazil "without prejudice"—is more than a diplomatic footnote; it is a powerful indictment of the current political climate. It exposes a dangerous truth: that vital economic relationships between democracies are being polluted by ideological animosity and partisan battles that should remain domestic. Lula's move was a pragmatic survival tactic, a recognition that sometimes you must bypass the hostile institution and appeal directly to the source of power. However, while a direct line between presidents may offer a temporary truce and a path to removing the crippling tariffs, it does not solve the underlying problem. A truly civilized and sovereign relationship must be founded on mutual institutional respect, not on the personal "chemistry" of two leaders or the ideological prejudice of an appointed official. The future requires the US to treat Brazil as the sovereign, major democracy it is, ensuring that diplomacy is guided by shared interests, not by partisan vendettas. Only then can the true potential of this essential partnership be realized.
Featured Resources and Sources
InfoMoney: Lula says he asked Trump for Marco Rubio to 'talk to Brazil without prejudice'
Context: The report detailing the phone conversation and Lula's specific request regarding Marco Rubio.
O Tempo / SBT News: Detailed coverage of the conversation and the Brazilian government's stance on tariffs.
CNN Brasil: Analysis of Marco Rubio's profile and his "aversion" to the Lula administration, including the impact of tariffs.
USAFacts / US Department of State: Data on trade and foreign direct investment (FDI) between the US and Brazil.
PBS Newshour: Interview with Lula about the tension in relations with the US under Trump and the issue of tariffs.
⚖️ Disclaimer Editorial
This article reflects a critical and opinionated analysis produced for Diário do Carlos Santos, based on public information, reports, and data from sources considered reliable. It does not represent an official communication or institutional position of any other companies or entities mentioned here.
Post a Comment