Jun 6 2025| Nº. 169

Editorial

New polls this week show President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva facing growing disapproval, hitting record lows ahead of next year’s reelection campaign. New data from Quaest released Wednesday, June 5 shows Lula’s disapproval rising to 57%, the highest of his third term, while approval fell to 40%. For the first time, he is more disapproved than approved among Catholics and voters with only an elementary education. His approval rating among Brazil’s poorest voters is now statistically tied with his disapproval. Lula regained ground in the Northeast, but disapproval surged in the Southeast and remains high among men, evangelicals, and wealthier voters. Part of the reason for these numbers is that voters remain skeptical of the state of the economy, with 61% saying the country is on the wrong track. The poll also found that 31% blame Lula’s government for a recent far-reaching scandal in the social security administration. Despite pockets of support, especially from Bolsa Família recipients and Black Brazilians, Lula’s overall image has declined, with 56% saying his current administration is worse than his earlier ones.

Meanwhile, Finance Minister Fernando Haddad announced that alternatives to his controversial move to raise the financial transaction tax (Imposto sobre Operações Financeiras, or IOF) won’t be proposed until congressional leaders meet this Sunday. The delay follows backlash over the government’s plan to raise over R$20 billion by taxing foreign currency purchases, loans, and other financial operations. While Lula, Haddad, and top congressional figures met to hash out a compromise, leaders demanded time to consult party members. For now, the IOF hike remains in place, though a reversal is likely. Vice President Geraldo Alckmin and Senate President Davi Alcolumbre framed the delay as a sign of institutional “maturity,” but growing resistance in Congress could lead to the tax being scrapped if no consensus is reached.

With these political challenges to be resolved at home, Lula embarked on another international trip, landing in France for a state visit on Thursday. Despite their warm rapport, Lula and French President Emmanuel Macron disagreed publicly over the stalled trade deal between the European Union and Mercosul, highlighting growing international and domestic pressure on Lula’s foreign policy priorities. As he prepares to assume the rotating presidency of the Mercosul bloc, Lula vowed to finalize the agreement within six months, despite fierce resistance from French farmers and lawmakers who argue the proposed deal threatens Europe’s agricultural sector. The diplomatic push comes amid Lula’s struggles at home to maintain support while navigating unpopular fiscal reforms, painting a picture of a leader increasingly boxed in on multiple fronts.

Highlights

• Fugitive. Federal congresswoman Carla Zambelli, one of the stars of the Brazilian far right, gave an interview on Tuesday, June 3 to a radio station announcing that she would be taking leave from her position and moving to Europe. The decision is a response to the fact that she was sentenced in May by the Brazilian Supreme Court to ten years in prison, the loss of her mandate and payment of a fine for having hired a hacker to invade the computer systems of the Brazilian Judiciary, in the context of the numerous attacks on democracy that were perpetrated by the far right during the Bolsonaro government. Zambelli left Brazil for Argentina and then to the US, where she gave the interview saying that she had Italian citizenship and would move to Europe, where she would be “untouchable.”

• Reaction from the courts. The day after this interview, Supreme Court Justic Alexandre de Moraes ordered Zambelli’s immediate arrest and the freezing of her assets. He also requested that her name be included on Interpol’s wanted list, He also requested that her name be added to Interpol's wanted list, which ended up happening later that day. Brazil and Italy have an extradition treaty, but it leaves room for political interference, especially when it involves citizens with dual nationality. In addition, there are doubts about whether the United States would cooperate with Brazil at a time when the Trump administration was moving precisely to protect the exponents of the Brazilian far right and create constraints for Moraes.

• Law of devastation. On May 21, the Senate approved, by 54 votes to 13, the bill that creates the General Environmental Licensing Law (PL 2159/2021) – nicknamed the Devastation Bill –, whose text relaxes the penalties for enterprises that exploit the environment and are polluting. The Senate then included new changes to the bill, which could speed up the approval of projects of interest to the federal government, such as oil exploration in the mouth of the Amazon River.

• Artistic freedom. A federal judge sentenced Brazilian comedian Léo Lins to eight years in prison and a million-dollar fine for making discriminatory jokes against several minorities during a stand-up routine in 2022 in Curitiba. Lins is a hit on the internet with videos in which he disparages Black people, obese people, people from the Northeast, gays, and other discriminated groups. The ruling sparked a heated debate in Brazil, among comedians and jurists, regarding artistic freedom and the limits of freedom of expression.

• Regulation of Big Tech. On June 5, the Brazilian Supreme Court resumed the trial of two cases involving the removal of content posted by users of the social network. The cases are important because they concern a broader discussion about the responsibility of big tech when its users post illegal content. The debate does not only apply to Brazil, as the United States has been adopting retaliatory measures against countries that, in its view, attack freedom of expression by imposing control over the companies that control the main social networks currently in use.

News from ABO and social organizations and movements:

Brazil Unfiltered. In the latest episode of the WBO podcast, Brazil Unfiltered, James N. Green interviews Eduardo Gomes, associate professor of Political Science at the Universidade Federal Fluminense and PhD in Political Science from the University of Chicago. In the program, they discuss the prospects for the BRICS in the Trump era. The member countries of the group have a summit scheduled for July 6 and 7, in Rio de Janeiro. Listen to the program via the link.

OAS Course. The WBO and the Behner Stiefel Center for Brazilian Studies at San Diego State University concluded a course this week on the origin and functioning of the Inter-American Human Rights System, as part of a broader project that aims to strengthen the work and protection of indigenous activists and organizations and environmental causes. The online course took place between April and May 2025, in a total of 8 sessions that totaled 24 hours, with approximately 40 students per class.

Environment. A group of Brazilian civil society organizations published an opinion piece in the Folha de São Paulo newspaper this week criticizing the so-called Devastation Bill, approved by the National Congress. How will Brazil present itself to foreign countries when questioned about its measures to protect the environment? What arguments will be used when floods, landslides, pollution and deaths occur due to the irresponsibility of decisions made by those who signed the ‘Devastation Bill’?” the group asks.

Dams. Brazil celebrated World Environment Day this Thursday, June 5 with a march of more than a thousand women affected by dams. They marched in Brasília towards the National Congress against the so-called “Devastation Bill,” under the slogan “National Day of Struggle for Affected Women: To Confront Fascism, the Climate Crisis and Advance Rights”. See the images.

Feature Article

Alexandre de Moraes and Shaken Democracy in Brazil

By Ana Laura Barbosa*

In recent years, Minister Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court has assumed a central position in the public debate. His actions have divided opinions: on one side, there are those who proclaim him a bastion of the defense of democracy in Brazil. On the other, there are those who condemn him as an executioner of freedom of expression.

Moraes' actions in the investigations and actions he reports on have been reactions a to the discursive component of Bolsonaro's method of attacking democracy. After six years, it is possible to point out the merits and weaknesses of his efforts, but it is still not possible to accurately estimate whether they were successful.

Discursively, Bolsonaro questioned the credibility of the judiciary, legislative and the electoral system. And it was not only Bolsonaro. There was a true coordinated network for the propagation of misinformation and anti-democratic speeches on social media, fueling anti-democratic sentiments.

The fight against Bolsonaro and his party's discursive strategy ended up being almost entirely centered on Alexandre de Moraes. As rapporteur of controversial investigations, some of which were initiated ex officio, Moraes was responsible for a series of decisions that ordered the removal people from government positions, demonetization of media channels, and blocking of social media profiles that offended the court or discredited the electoral system and democratic institutions. He ordered arrests or other precautionary measures for individuals suspected of being part of networks spreading disinformation or speeches attacking institutions. His decisions affected everyone from little-known profiles to personalities such as Daniel Silveira, Roberto Jefferson, Sara Winter, and Allan dos Santos.

Moraes' combative role in the investigations may have been important in imposing limits on the network spreading anti-democratic speeches, and, in doing so, protecting democracy. However, assessing with certainty the impact of this action in the defense of democracy requires time, distance from the still very recent political events, and a deeper understanding of the mechanisms behind the coup planning that, by all indications, was underway during the Bolsonaro administration.

The discourses of the populist and authoritarian far right are propagated using very specific techniques, and it is still unclear what the best response would be. On the one hand, restricting these discourses removes them from the public sphere and prevents them from manipulating voters' decision-making. Disinformation, oversimplification, and distortion of information can contaminate the public sphere and prevent voters from making fully informed decisions. Removing this type of content, therefore, could have potentially positive impacts on democracy. On the other hand, this attempt could be costly, as it produces a kind of rebound effect, intensifying populist and authoritarian discourses, which instrumentalize a distorted ideal of freedom of expression and begin to use rhetoric of persecution.

The high cost of controlling these discourses does not only occur in the discursive field. Most of these decisions were made at the cost of weakening procedural guarantees and values ​​relevant to the rule of law, as they occurred in investigations instituted ex officio and in secret, with grounds that do not sufficiently articulate the meaning and scope of freedom of expression or the boundaries between offending the individuals who make up a body and inciting the population to rise up against the body itself. It is true that Bolsonaro was able to develop ways to circumvent institutional constraints that would be responsible for controlling him. Faced with this imbalance in the system, the Supreme Court took on this task, and there are those who claim that excesses, in this context, would be justifiable. Even so, the costs of this action cannot be disregarded.

Democracy, for now, has persevered in Brazil. Bolsonaro was defeated in the elections and declared ineligible to run for office by the Superior Electoral Court until 2031. Individualizing Moraes' share of merit in this result is still impossible to do. However, what can be identified is that this strategy also implied weaknesses and costs to the court. Democracy persevered, but it was severely shaken. There is an ongoing discursive dispute regarding the meaning of democracy and the freedoms that arise from it. And efforts to limit speech on social media have not been able to dispel the authoritarian far right, which continues to find ways to propagate authoritarian speeches with great force in Brazil and around the world.

*Ana Laura Barbosa holds a PhD in State Law from the Faculty of Law of the University of São Paulo, and a bachelor's and master's degree from the same institution. She is a professor of Constitutional Law at the Escola Superior de Propaganda e Marketing (ESPM).

Feature articles express the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors or WBO.