Os ventos do norte
Não movem moinhos
E o que me resta
É só um gemido

Minha vida, meus mortos
Meus caminhos tortos
Meu sangue latino
Minh’alma cativa

Rompi tratados
Traí os ritos
Quebrei a lança
Lancei no espaço
Um grito, um desabafo

E o que me importa
É não estar vencido

Sangue Latino, Ney Matogrosso

It is therefore unsurprising that Trump should advocate for Brazil to once again become the United States’ backyard. In order to ensure this, the country has been responsible for causing political and economic instability in Brazil since at least the 1950s. This can be verified in official US government documents that have been declassified.

Brazil possesses a number of strategic resources, including rare minerals and metals (utilised in the manufacture of high-strength alloys for military, aerospace and energy industries), oil and gas, and agricultural products (for which Brazil is a key player in the global chain). In addition, the country has water resources and biodiversity, as evidenced by the Amazon rainforest and the Guarani aquifer (which, in addition to the resources themselves, are also fundamental to the planet’s climate and environmental regulation).

Moreover, Brazil stands as the most expansive nation in Latin America, boasting an extensive coastline along the South Atlantic, a region of paramount importance due to its strategic significance for commercial and military routes. The Brazilian coastline is also subject to the jurisdiction of exclusive maritime economic zones, which extend over strategic resources such as offshore oil.

At this juncture, it is reasonable to hypothesise that the interference and sabotage perpetrated by the US is intended to facilitate the acquisition of strategic assets, with a particular emphasis on the rare earths recently discovered in Minas Gerais.

The deliberate orchestration of an economic crisis serves as a pivotal catalyst for the initiation of forced privatisations, which in turn facilitate the unregulated entry of historically protected sectors, including but not limited to energy, mining, and infrastructure. During the 1990s, strategic sectors were privatised due to the implementation of neoliberal reforms and the involvement of foreign capital, notably from the United States.

Furthermore, it is important to highlight the US interest in weakening BRICS, which has emerged as a strong economic bloc, possibly surpassing other free trade areas.

The utilisation of historical evidence in conjunction with official documents from the US government facilitates the reconstruction of a chronology:

1950 – mid-1963: The Cold War
In the aftermath of the Cuban Revolution of 1959, the United States began to perceive Latin America as a region susceptible to communist expansion. The United States employed political support and the influence of local elites to finance business groups, thereby exerting economic pressure through credit and trade policies. In this manner, the US established itself as a significant influence on the Brazilian political and military elites.

1964: The overthrow of President João Goulart by a military coup d’état

The US ambassador to Brazil, Lincoln Gordon, transmitted a confidential communication to the US government, articulating grave concerns regarding the government of João Goulart and proposing specific actions:

It is evident that President Goulart is collaborating with the Brazilian Communist Party with the objective of ‘seizing dictatorial power’. Furthermore, it is recommended that ‘a clandestine delivery of arms’ be made available to Branco’s supporters, in addition to a shipment of gas and oil, with a view to facilitating the success of the coup forces. It is imperative to prepare without delay for the possibility of overt intervention at a subsequent stage.

The declassification of documents has provided insights into Operation Brother Sam, a military plan devised by the American military to provide support for the overthrow of the Brazilian government by military means. This operation involved the deployment of naval vessels and aircraft that were prepared for immediate deployment.

The Operation Brother Sam deployment comprised the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal, six destroyers, four tankers, seven C-135 aircraft, fighter jets, weapons and ammunition. However, the opposition military in Brazil swiftly deposed the Goulart government, thereby rendering the operation ineffective in Brazil.

The US government provided overt political support to the military and played an active role in the provision of information and signalling immediate recognition of the coup regime. Furthermore, the US government offered indirect support in the form of logistics. According to materials compiled by the National Security Archive and the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), leaders in Washington worked to “facilitate” the success of the coup.

1964–1985: The consolidation of the dictatorship and the acts of sabotage against communism

The Mann Doctrine (1926) established pragmatic criteria: the tolerance of pro-American dictators and the combatting of communists. It was officially advised that the nature of regimes should not be a subject of inquiry; rather, support should be extended to those regimes which were aligned with US interests.

The policy in question stipulated a non-interventionist approach towards dictators, provided they demonstrated a favourable disposition towards US business interests. Conversely, it called for intervention against Communists, irrespective of their specific policies. In addition, it is important to note that: US operatives interpreted the Mann Doctrine of 18 March as a ‘green light’ for the coup to proceed.

The military regime established repressive institutions and aligned itself with the anti-communist agenda of the US. In the 1970s, South American dictatorships collaborated in transnational repression operations, which came to be known as Operation Condor. The operation was facilitated by the complicity of local services and, to varying degrees, by support and information circulating through channels aligned with the US government.

In this particular context, interventions did not invariably take the form of military action; rather, they encompassed economic boycotts, withdrawal and conditioning of credit, and support for campaigns by entities that served to weaken nationalist governments. It is evident that opposition organisations were financed, and pressure was exerted on capital flows, thereby strengthening the destabilisation of governments considered “dangerous” by Washington.

A review of historical evidence reveals the existence of campaign financing and think tanks, in addition to diplomatic actions aimed at isolating governments that did not align with the regime stipulated by the US.

The late 1990s to 2010 period: The influence has undergone a process of attenuation, yet it remains an ever-present phenomenon, exerting its influence through the medium of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and think tanks

In the context of redemocratisation, the US succeeded in consolidating its influence through a variety of channels, including diplomatic and institutional mechanisms (with a particular emphasis on military, technological and educational cooperation). Additionally, private actors such as NGOs and think tanks played a significant role in propagating doctrines imported from Washington. This influence functioned as a template for the political and economic environment, albeit in a more discreet manner than during the years of military dictatorship, yet always in a pervasive way.

2011–2016: The present study will examine the government of Dilma Rousseff and the onset of a political crisis

The political agenda of Dilma Rousseff (PT) was characterised by the implementation of policies aimed at promoting social expansion and the resumption of South-South cooperation. The crisis that led to impeachment (2015–2016) had complex internal causes, including a deteriorating economy, corruption scandals (Operation Car Wash), the breakdown of coalition bases, and strong political polarisation. It is evident that prominent figures within the Car Wash judicial apparatus have been observed to engage in collaborative endeavours with the US government, with the objective of subverting the political agenda of the Dilma administration.

It is evident that a number of researchers and analysts (including, it is worth noting, a “long coup“) have documented the fact that a section of the 2015–2016 process combined internal action (in the media, the Attorney General’s Office and Congress) with disinformation and the fomenting of protests. Furthermore, a number of studies and articles argue that there was also external influence (exchange of information, support from transnational conservative networks, training of political movements).

Nevertheless, the evidence of direct intervention by Washington to force impeachment is less compelling than in the case of 1964. The impeachment was primarily the result of internal right-wing actors, with the echo of international right-wing networks and actors.

It is crucial to emphasise the manner in which transnational media networks and conservative groups that are opposed to governments with populist agendas, such as those that were in power during the PT years, have amplified alleged scandals.

2016–2018: Long coup and rise of the right

Recent research describes a prolonged process (media discourse, judicialisation, leaks, and reputation operations) that paved the way for extreme polarisation and the rise to power of radical right-wing candidates in 2018. There are academic works and journalistic investigations that document connections between Brazilian conservative networks and international actors (consultancies, digital platforms, influencers), which were decisive in constructing anti-PT narratives. The literature debates how much of this articulation was an external initiative versus an internal opportunity. Figures such as Steve Bannon were decisive in the election results, as was the adoption of communication strategies inspired by Trumpism.

2018–2022: The worst possible president and the most abject person on the planet come to power

Jair Bolsonaro won the 2018 elections largely through a campaign that exploited digital networks, influencers, and an anti-establishment platform. During and after the campaign, there were visible contacts with figures from the conservative/alt-right political environment in the US (e.g., Steve Bannon and ideological allies) and rhetorical alignment with the Trump administration. This transnational network encouraged communication strategies, framing, and allegations of electoral “fraud,” as well as symbolic and image support.

2022–2025 — Post-Bolsonaro defeat, flight from the country, accusations and international pressure
After losing in 2022, Bolsonaro was the target of investigations in Brazil (linked to attempts to destabilise the 2022 electoral process and plans for a coup). Part of the Bolsonaro family and allies fled seeking shelter and coordination abroad (including the US), seeking political and legal support.

Journalistic sources document meetings and attempts to influence US authorities to pressure the Brazilian government against legal proceedings in favour of Bolsonaro. In 2025, there was a clear escalation in the Trump administration’s actions regarding the Bolsonaro case: President Trump insulted the Brazilian judicial process, classified the investigations against Bolsonaro as “persecution,” sanctioned or threatened measures (punitive tariffs on Brazilian imports, sanctions against Brazilian authorities involved in Bolsonaro’s trial), and denounced the actions of judges as politically motivated. (Sources: Reuters, Washington Post, Financial Times, Guardian, and official White House documents/communiqués).

Journalistic investigations and contemporary reports show that members of the Bolsonaro family (notably Eduardo Bolsonaro) have maintained direct contact with officials and advisers in the US, seeking to persuade the American government to intervene — for example, by suggesting sanctions against Brazilian judges and encouraging measures such as tariff increases in retaliation for judicial decisions in Brazil. Reports have attributed to Eduardo the role of “bridge” to the Trump administration to obtain external pressure against the Brazilian judiciary. These actions have been interpreted by critics as clear attempts to influence Brazilian national sovereignty, using the power of another state to interfere in internal processes. There are also public statements and posts by family members favouring American measures.

In contemporary Brazil, the Bolsonaro family and their supporters are regarded as emblematic of the nation’s prevailing socio-political challenges. They are often accused of engaging in corrupt practices, betraying their principles, and prioritising their own agendas over the broader interests of the nation.

The present situation can be likened to a state of waiting, in which the only action available is to observe the progression of the legal proceedings. It is hoped that the results of the 2026 elections will be a more accurate reflection of the will of the Brazilian people, and that they will be less influenced by external factors, such as those emanating from Washington.

As the march that is poised to be the highlight of the 2026 carnival asserts, on a free translation:

You can raise taxes,
You can kick and scream,
You can send letters,
You can threaten,

Here you don't call the shots
Here we are tough

We eat oranges
We burn fascists!

O Trumpi, salva meu pai!

Listen here the song.