In a momentous decision that has reverberated far beyond Brazil’s borders, the country’s Supreme Court handed down a 27-year and three-month prison sentence to former President Jair Bolsonaro on September 11, 2025, convicting him of orchestrating a coup attempt to remain in power after his defeat in the 2022 elections. The ruling, delivered by the First Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court in Brasilia, marks a seismic shift in Brazil’s approach to military and political accountability, and has ignited fierce debate across the nation and the globe, according to Havana Times and other major outlets.
Bolsonaro was not alone in facing the court’s historic judgment. Three generals and an admiral—among them former Defense Minister and Chief of Staff General Walter Braga Netto—were also found guilty and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 19 to 27 years, alongside hefty fines. General Braga Netto received a 26-year sentence and a fine of 130,200 reais (about $24,100), and has been in preventive detention since December 2024. Admiral Almir Garnier, along with Army generals Augusto Heleno Pereira and Paulo Sergio Nogueira, received sentences of 19 to 24 years, reflecting their central roles in the plot. This marks the first time in Brazil’s history that such high-ranking military officials have been tried and sentenced by civil courts for crimes of this magnitude.
The Supreme Court’s 4-1 vote, with Justice Luiz Fux as the lone dissenter, capped a trial that began on March 26, 2025, after Attorney General Paulo Gonet filed a formal complaint. The proceedings focused on a chain of events that culminated in the January 8, 2023, storming of Brazil’s three seats of government in Brasilia by a mob of Bolsonaro supporters. The crowd sought to provoke a military intervention and derail the transfer of power to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, causing widespread destruction and damage to historical assets. The court’s convictions covered five counts: attempted coup, abolition of the democratic rule of law, criminal organization, damage to public property, and deterioration of historical assets.
The prosecution divided the 34 defendants—24 of whom were military personnel—into groups based on their roles: from the “crucial core” of leadership, to those providing legal, intelligence, and tactical support, including the proposed assassination of President-elect Lula. The trial’s final phase targeted the eight members of this “crucial core,” resulting in the conviction of Bolsonaro, the generals, Admiral Garnier, two federal police officers, and Army Lieutenant Colonel Mauro Cid. Cid, who served as Bolsonaro’s aide, received a two-year sentence to be served at home after cooperating with authorities.
Justice Fux’s dissent, delivered in a marathon 12-hour, 429-page opinion on September 10, argued for the acquittal of Bolsonaro and five others. Fux’s stance has already fueled accusations from the far right and some moderate conservatives against the trial’s legitimacy, adding momentum to a pro-amnesty movement for Bolsonaro. According to Havana Times, Fux’s reasoning was criticized for inconsistencies, including convicting Cid while acquitting Bolsonaro, and for treating each event as isolated rather than part of a broader conspiracy. His arguments have become rallying points for those seeking to overturn the convictions or grant amnesty to Bolsonaro, especially ahead of the October 2026 elections.
Internationally, the verdict has drawn both praise and condemnation. Many leading newspapers and commentators have hailed Brazil as a model in resisting authoritarian populism, contrasting its actions with the lack of accountability seen in other countries. Authors like Steven Levitsky have pointed out that “Brazil has succeeded where the US has failed,” referencing the parallels between Bolsonaro’s actions and former US President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Trump himself took to social media to declare that he was “very unhappy” with the decision, calling Bolsonaro a “good man” and a “good president of Brazil.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio went further, warning, “The United States will respond appropriately to this witch hunt.” Trump even drew a direct comparison to his own legal troubles, stating, “It’s very similar to what they tried to do to me and failed.” Some analysts believe Trump’s reaction may have influenced the recent imposition of 50% super tariffs on Brazilian goods.
Within Brazil, the decision has not ended political strife. Bolsonaro’s supporters are expected to intensify calls for amnesty, both in the streets and inside the National Congress, where sympathy for his views remains strong. Conservative lawmakers have already introduced a proposal to grant Bolsonaro amnesty and restore his political rights, though polls indicate that 54% of Brazilians oppose such a move. The Supreme Court has signaled that amnesty for those convicted of attempting a coup is unconstitutional, but the debate is far from settled.
The trial’s broader impact on Brazil’s military and democratic institutions is complex. While the ruling has been celebrated as evidence that the country is learning from its history of impunity for military coups, some legal scholars and commentators caution that the narrative advanced by the court and media may oversimplify the Armed Forces’ role. As reported by Havana Times and academic analysis, some justices emphasized that the coup failed because Army and Air Force commanders refused to participate. Yet, 24 of the 34 indicted were military personnel, many of them influential leaders. The court’s narrative risks framing the problem as the work of a few "rotten apples," rather than acknowledging deeper institutional issues within the military.
Critics argue that, despite the historic convictions, the ruling does little to address the longstanding lack of civilian oversight over Brazil’s military—a legacy of the 1964 dictatorship and its incomplete transition to democracy. The legislative branch has expanded the military’s role in domestic security, and courts have upheld broad amnesty laws and military jurisdiction over human rights violations. The judiciary itself has at times maintained close ties to the Armed Forces, and only after the coup attempt did the Supreme Court explicitly reject the military’s interpretation of its constitutional role.
As Brazil grapples with the fallout, the sentences handed down may be delayed by appeals, though the law only allows clarification, not reversal, of the sentences. The trials of the remaining defendants are expected in the coming months, but with the ringleaders now convicted, their impact may be limited. Meanwhile, the country faces ongoing debates about the balance of power between its branches of government, the proper role of the military, and the resilience of its democracy.
Bolsonaro’s conviction stands as a landmark victory against impunity and a testament to Brazil’s evolving commitment to democratic accountability. Yet, the road ahead is fraught with challenges, as the country continues to reckon with its past and strives to ensure that history does not repeat itself.
