Diplomatic ties between Brazil and the United States have taken a sharp turn in August 2025, as a series of legal rulings, sanctions, and policy shifts have pushed the two countries into one of the most contentious periods in recent memory. The catalyst: a clash over human rights, judicial independence, and the reach of foreign law within Brazilian borders.
The latest flashpoint came on August 18, when Brazil’s Supreme Court, led by Justice Flavio Dino, issued a decisive ruling that foreign laws and judicial decisions cannot automatically take effect within the country. This judgment, prompted by a petition from the influential Brazilian Mining Association (Ibram), was intended to address a rising tide of lawsuits filed in foreign courts seeking compensation for two of Brazil’s most devastating mining disasters: the 2015 Mariana dam collapse and the 2019 Brumadinho disaster. Both incidents resulted in catastrophic loss of life and environmental destruction, and international claimants have sought redress in courts outside Brazil.
Justice Dino’s ruling was unambiguous. As reported by Kursiv, he stated that he had "suspended the effectiveness of judicial decisions, laws, decrees and executive orders of foreign states in our country that have not been incorporated or obtained the assent of the sovereign bodies under Brazil’s Constitution and laws." In practical terms, this means that unless a foreign court’s decision is formally recognized by Brazilian legal authorities, it holds no sway within Brazil’s borders. While the immediate impact is on the high-profile mining claims, the precedent could ripple through a range of international legal disputes involving Brazilian interests.
The court’s decision was not made in a vacuum. It arrives at a moment when U.S.-Brazil relations are already under strain. Just days before, on August 13, the U.S. Department of State announced that it had revoked or restricted visas for two Brazilian nationals with alleged ties to the "Mais Médicos" program—a federal initiative launched in 2013 to address chronic shortages of medical professionals in Brazil’s remote regions. The U.S. government contends that the program, which enlists doctors from Cuba’s overseas medical labor force, relies on forced labor. The sanctioned individuals are Mozart Julio Tabosa Sales, a current Ministry of Health official, and Alberto Kleiman, a former Pan American Health Organization official.
This move is only the latest in a series of escalating measures by Washington. In July, the U.S. imposed sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act against Justice Alexandre de Moraes of Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court. Moraes, who is overseeing the legal proceedings against former President Jair Bolsonaro, has been accused by the U.S. of arbitrary detentions and restricting freedom of expression—particularly targeting Bolsonaro’s supporters. Bolsonaro, a political ally of former U.S. President Donald Trump, is himself on trial for allegedly attempting to overturn the results of Brazil’s 2022 presidential election.
On the trade front, relations have become even more fractious. Effective August 6, a sweeping 50% tariff was applied to most Brazilian imports under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), with only a handful of products exempted. Trump, who has been vocal in his criticism of the Brazilian judiciary’s treatment of Bolsonaro, framed the tariffs as a direct retaliation against what he called a "witch hunt" targeting the former president. The tariffs, coupled with the new visa restrictions and sanctions, have sent shockwaves through the business community on both sides of the equator.
According to an August 4 client alert cited by Kursiv, these developments are expected to "increase compliance and due diligence burdens for U.S. companies operating in or sourcing from Brazil" and "affect the ability of Brazilian nationals, including public officials, to travel to the U.S. for business or official purposes." The alert also warns of "heightened scrutiny of joint ventures, government contracts, and supply chain relationships that involve Brazilian public entities or officials." In short, the cost of doing business between the two countries is rising—fast.
Human rights concerns have provided much of the fuel for this diplomatic fire. On August 12, the U.S. State Department issued its 2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Brazil, highlighting restrictions on freedom of speech, particularly those affecting Bolsonaro’s supporters. The report also referenced judicial orders by Justice Moraes that limited access to certain social media accounts, raising questions about the Brazilian judiciary’s commitment to civil liberties and due process.
Brazilian officials, for their part, have rejected these allegations, asserting that the country’s legal system is fully capable of handling such matters without foreign interference. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on foreign law is seen by many in Brasília as a statement of national sovereignty in the face of what some perceive as U.S. overreach. The decision, while rooted in the specifics of the mining cases, is being interpreted as a broader assertion of Brazil’s right to determine which foreign legal decisions are applicable within its territory.
The U.S. response was swift and unequivocal. The State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs posted on social media: "No foreign court can invalidate United States sanctions — or spare anyone from the steep consequences of violating them." The message also included a warning that, while U.S. citizens are barred from dealing with Justice Moraes, "individuals in other countries should tread carefully." This statement underscores the Biden administration’s intent to ensure that U.S. sanctions have global reach, even as other nations push back against what they see as extraterritorial enforcement.
Legal analysts predict that the Brazilian Supreme Court’s ruling will spark a new round of challenges, both in the courts and in the diplomatic arena. The tension between national sovereignty and the demands of international litigation is hardly new, but rarely has it been on such vivid display between two of the Western Hemisphere’s largest democracies. For businesses, the risks are multiplying: the combination of sanctions, tariffs, visa restrictions, and now a more assertive Brazilian judiciary means that cross-border operations will require even more careful navigation.
As the dust settles, it’s clear that the diplomatic standoff is far from over. With both sides digging in on questions of law, human rights, and sovereignty, the coming months are likely to see further legal and political maneuvering. For now, Brazilian officials and their U.S. counterparts remain locked in a high-stakes contest—one that could reshape the rules of engagement for years to come.
