'Frustrated Latin American', 'moves the cloth to Maduro': remember the exchanges of barbs between Lula and Marco Rubio

Tariff: USA confirms 25% charge on Brazilian products After the United States confirmed the application of 25% tariffs on Brazilian products, the United States Secretary of State indicated that the motivation for the measure is political. On social media, Marco Rubio said that the Lula government's economic policies are "bad for Americans and bad for Brazilians." ? Follow the g1 international news channel on WhatsApp In a post on social media, Rubio also accused Lula of not negotiating in good faith with the United States. "So that there is no confusion about the reason: President Lula and his government would not negotiate with the US in good faith," wrote the secretary. Rubio also said he thought the Brazilian president put "his own ego ahead of making an agreement for the well-being of the Brazilian people" and that "tariffs are the price for that." The United States Secretary of State makes it clear that the motivations behind the pricing come from a political analysis. Reproduction / X ? The statements reinforce the view, already defended by members of the Brazilian government, that the decision has a political component. However, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the body responsible for the investigation that resulted in the tariff, rejected the argument. At a press conference after the measure was released, a USTR official denied that the surcharge was motivated by political differences with the Lula government. "I totally reject this. It's not about whether or not you like the political decisions of another country," replied the American representative when asked by TV Globo about the political nature of the decision. Still according to the authority, conversations with the Brazilian government remained open throughout the process and took place in a cordial tone. "We have very cordial conversations with our Brazilian interlocutors. In fact, they are the only people I talk to. I am not having discussions with other people in Brazil," he stated. The Brazilian government claimed that Brazil maintained dialogue with Donald Trump's government and made several attempts at meetings to avoid tariffs. In May 2026, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and US President Donald Trump met at the White House to discuss the trade agenda. Days after the meeting, the United States Trade Representative held a virtual meeting with the Minister of Development, Industry, Commerce and Services of Brazil, Márcio Fernando Elias Rosa. In July, during the USTR hearings to discuss whether to apply the tariff to Brazil, the Brazilian government sent representatives to the meetings. USTR details criticism of Brazil after announcement of the tariff Insper professor analyzes the effects of the new tariff on the Brazilian economy The USTR published on social media a long list of arguments to justify the measure. According to the agency, Brazil has adopted practices for decades that harm American companies, favor Brazilian producers and restrict the access of US exporters to the Brazilian market. Among the criticisms presented are illegal deforestation in the Amazon, court decisions involving American digital platforms, preferential tariffs granted to countries such as Mexico and India, failures to protect intellectual property, difficulties in accessing the Brazilian ethanol market and the functioning of the PIX payment system. In the environmental area, the agency stated that illegal logging in the Amazon contributes to reducing international prices for the product and harms the competitiveness of the American timber industry. The USTR also alleged that some spheres of government in Brazil have reduced incentives aimed at combating deforestation. Entities in the industrial sector show concern about new tariffs In relation to digital commerce, Americans criticized decisions by Brazilian courts that ordered the removal of content from platforms such as X, Meta and Google, in addition to the suspension of accounts and the imposition of fines in case of non-compliance with court orders. The American government also claims that Brazil offers preferential tariff treatment to countries such as Mexico and India on hundreds of products, with rates lower than those applied to United States exporters. Another point mentioned was the protection of intellectual property. The USTR recalls that Brazil has remained on the so-called "Watch List" of the Special 301 report since 2007, an annual document that monitors countries considered problematic in the protection of patents, trademarks and copyrights. Threat of new measures in case of retaliation The USTR representative also stated that Washington remains willing to negotiate, but indicated that possible retaliatory measures by Brazil could provoke new responses from the United States. "We remain open to dialogue. I believe that, if there is retaliation, we will be asked to possibly modify our action to counter that retaliation," he said. Despite the warning, he stated that he does not expect a commercial response from the Brazilian government. "I don't foresee retaliation. If Brazil chooses to do so, there will probably be new measures on our part." Lula and Trump last met at the White House in May Ricardo Stuckert / PR US government says focus is on trade practices Asked about the fact that the United States maintains a trade surplus in its bilateral relationship with Brazil, the USTR representative said that this aspect was not central to the investigation. According to him, the focus was on topics considered problematic by Americans, such as intellectual property, combating corruption, illegal deforestation, access to the ethanol market and rules applied to digital services. "As for the surplus related to our trade relationship, to be honest, if we resolved these other issues, we would probably have a larger surplus with Brazil," he said. Ethanol and PIX remain among the main points of friction. The American official also detailed what changes Washington hopes to see on the Brazilian side. One of the themes highlighted was the access of American producers to the ethanol market. According to the representative, the USA defends treatment equivalent to that granted by Brazil to other trading partners. With the rise in oil prices, the government approves an increase in the mixture of ethanol in gasoline Jornal Nacional/ Reproduction "They have preferential tariff agreements with India and Mexico, and we would like to have this same type of access," he stated. The argument was also reinforced by the USTR on social media. According to the agency, Brazil no longer offers a balanced tariff treatment to American ethanol and does not reciprocate the preferential conditions granted by the USA to Brazilian fuel. According to the American government, ethanol exports from the United States to Brazil fell from US$761 million in 2018 to US$96 million in 2025. Regarding PIX, one of the most sensitive points in the dispute, the American government denied that it is calling for the end of the Brazilian payment system. Trump government concludes that PIX is 'unfair': why does the Brazilian system bother the US so much and what can happen to it now? Marcello Casal Jr/Agência Brasil The official position is that American companies in the financial sector are not harmed or subjected to conditions considered unequal. "We want PIX to compete with American companies on an equal commercial footing," said the official. In publications released after the announcement of the tariff, the USTR stated that the Central Bank acts simultaneously as regulator and operator of the PIX and that rules such as free access for individuals and the limitation of fees charged to companies would favor the Brazilian system in relation to private American competitors. READ ALSO: USA announces 25% tariff on Brazilian products; see items that will be affected or exempt After the US announces new taxes on Brazil, the government says the decision is a 'regrettable milestone' in relations between the two countries Marco Rubio in testimony in the US House of Representatives REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein