Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s speech at the opening of the United Nations General Assembly, on September 23, was more than an allegation about Brazil. It was a piece full of geopolitical meaning, in which the Brazilian president appeared as a global defender of democracy against what he called “potential autocrats.”
He did not mention names, but the message had two obvious recipients: Jair Bolsonaro, already convicted of trying a coup d’etat in 2022, and Donald Trump, today president of the United States, who defends him with nails and teeth.
Lula celebrated that Brazil had managed to repel “an unprecedented attack” against its institutions, by condemning its predecessor 27 years in prison for conspiring with military and allies to ignore their electoral defeat. He presented that ruling as a lesson for the world: “Our democracy and our sovereignty are not negotiable.” The phrase worked as a warning towards those who see in democracy a disposable tool when it is not convenient.
It was not the first time that the Brazilian pointed against Trump. In August, Lula had declared that, if the riots of January 6, 2021 in the Capitol had occurred in Brazil, the former US president would already be imprisoned. The comparison, provocative, sought to mark a contrast: while in the United States Trump was able to campaign and be elected despite multiple judicial causes, in Brazil justice condemned Bolsonaro and ran it from the possibility of competing in 2026 (when Lula looked for his fourth term).
Mirror marches
In the pre -speech in New York, Brazilian streets had realized the internal division that Brazil is experiencing. On September 21, multitudes marched to reject the possibility of an amnesty that could save Bolsonaro from jail. Tens of thousands of people in São Paulo, Río and Brasilia demanded that the conviction be fulfilled and that there is no forgiveness for those who tried to undermine democracy. The images remembered the “Ele Não” of 2018, when Miles mobilized against the candidacy of the ex -partner.
But it is not a social hegemony. Months before, the mobilizations in favor of Bolsonaro had reached comparable magnitudes, with yellow and green flags claiming “freedom” for the leader of the Brazilian right. That is, the streets function as a Yin and Yang: on the one hand, who see in Bolsonaro an institutional threat; of the other, who consider him a victim of persecution. And the Brazilian crack, like the American, manifests itself in the mass mobilization capacity of both paths.
The sanctions
Meanwhile, the clash between Lula and Trump ceased to be a rhetorical issue to become an unprecedented diplomatic crisis. Trump decided to impose 50% tariffs on Brazilian products and, in an unprecedented event, sanction Judge Alexandre de Moraes, president of the Supreme Federal Court, in charge of the process against Bolsonaro. Even the magistrate’s wife was achieved by these measures, generally applied against dictators or responsible for crimes against humanity.
The American treasure justified the decision claiming that Moraes headed a “political hunt” against Bolsonaro and his followers. The Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, went further and warned in networks: “The Togas are not going to protect them.” For the Lula Administration, the offensive was a “direct attack” to Brazilian democracy. Not only did PT ministers said: conservative leaders, such as the governor of Rio Grande do Sul, Eduardo Leite, rejected foreign interference.
The Brazilian government responded with indignation and Lula warned in the UN that “there is no justification for unilateral and arbitrary measures against our institutions” and denounced that US aggression intended to delegitimize its judicial system.
Shock of narratives
In the General Assembly, the tension was embodied in two consecutive speeches. Lula spoke of “digital and physical militias” who try to suffocate freedoms, glorify ignorance and restrict the press. Trump, on the other hand, accused Brazil of “censorship, repression and judicial corruption.” In the background, each one projected their own domestic battle: Lula sought to exhibit that Brazilian institutions worked in front of a coup attempt; Trump, that Bolsonaro’s trial is a mirror of his own situation, an internationalized witch hunt.
The contrast could not be more evident. Lula, 79, claimed judicial independence as the heart of democracy. Trump, on the other hand, presented it as a persecutory apparatus (90% of federal court judges and the Court respond to PT). Lula was shown as a global statesman, Trump as a defense lawyer for a personal ally.
Nationalism
Paradoxically, the clash with the United States ended up favoring Lula at home. His popularity, which came down due to economic problems (overwhelmed spending), resusciated himself after the condemnation of Bolsonaro and Trump’s offensive. Many Brazilians read sanctions as an external aggression and closed ranks in defense of sovereignty. In that sense, Lula took advantage of a historical resource: convert nationalism into political capital.
The surveys show a rebound of their approval and the possibility of a candidacy in 2026 no longer seems far -fetched (it would retain almost 40% of the votes). Lula managed to position himself as the leader who defends Brazil from external pressures and that guarantees that democracy resist, even under crossfire.
Brazil and the United States cross, in the background, similar dilemmas: how to deal with left or right presidents trying to manipulate institutionality to perpetuate themselves. Both countries suffered assaults on their institutions: on January 6 in Washington and January 8 in Brasilia. Both face the question of whether judging those leaders reinforces democracy or deepens polarization.
Image gallery
