Brazil Election 2026: Is US Pressure Illegal Under International Law?

Introduction

The Brazil election of 2026 has raised a significant question of international law: can the United States use economic pressure, terrorist designations, or other political measures to influence another country's presidential election? International law prohibits coercive intervention in matters reserved to a state's sovereign authority, including its choice of political leadership. Yet foreign political influence does not automatically constitute unlawful intervention. The legal distinction depends on the measures employed, the decisions they seek to influence, and the obligations binding the foreign state.

The question has acquired particular importance ahead of Brazil's October 25 presidential runoff between incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Senator Flávio Bolsonaro. Washington's tariff policies, reported demands concerning Brazilian political participation, and the designation of major Brazilian criminal organizations as terrorist groups have intensified scrutiny of US intentions. Allegations that Meta's platforms have disadvantaged Lula's campaign, alongside evidence of foreign-funded political advertising, have added another dimension to the controversy.

The available evidence establishes several instances of American economic and political pressure, together with genuine disputes concerning the regulation of Brazil's electoral campaign. It does not, on its own, establish that the United States has committed an internationally wrongful intervention intended to determine the presidential result.

That assessment requires separating the customary prohibition of intervention from the treaty obligations of the Organization of American States (OAS) Charter, international trade law, Brazilian electoral legislation, and the rules governing state responsibility for private conduct. As of October 23, 2026, the runoff has not occurred, and no official second-round result exists.

1. Brazil Election 2026: Runoff and Foreign Pressure

Brazil's presidential runoff follows a closely contested first round and a period of substantial disagreement between Brasília and Washington. The remaining candidates represent different political constituencies and approaches to relations with the United States. Those differences make American policy relevant to the campaign, but they cannot establish that Washington has interfered unlawfully in Brazil's electoral process.

Foreign influence can operate through several channels. Trade restrictions affect businesses, employment, and economic expectations. Diplomatic statements may strengthen political narratives or alter perceptions of a candidate's international standing. Decisions by foreign-owned technology companies can influence how campaign messages circulate, although they do not necessarily reflect the policies of the governments where those companies are incorporated.

Brazilian electoral institutions retain authority over the legality of campaign conduct and the determination of official election results. International observation provides an independent assessment of the process, but foreign governments and observers cannot substitute their preferred electoral outcome for the decision reached through Brazil's constitutional procedures.

1.1 Lula, Flávio Bolsonaro, and the First-Round Results

Brazil held the first round of its 2026 presidential election on October 4. According to the Superior Electoral Court (Tribunal Superior Eleitoral, TSE), Flávio Bolsonaro of the Liberal Party (PL) received 47.03% of valid votes, while Lula of the Workers' Party (PT) obtained 45.16%. Neither candidate secured the absolute majority required for election in the first round, making a runoff necessary under Article 77 of the Brazilian Constitution (Constitution of Brazil, 1988, art. 77; TSE, 2026).

Flávio Bolsonaro is running with Alfredo Gaspar, while Lula's vice-presidential candidate is Geraldo Alckmin. The contest also carries the political legacy of former President Jair Bolsonaro, Flávio's father, whose judicial proceedings and electoral ineligibility have contributed to disagreements between Brazilian institutions and the Trump administration. Those proceedings concern Jair Bolsonaro's own legal position and remain distinct from his son's candidacy.

The first-round results established a competitive presidential race in which neither leading candidate obtained sufficient support to avoid another vote. Both campaigns consequently face the task of attracting voters who supported other candidates or did not cast a valid presidential vote in the first round. External political statements may influence campaign narratives, but their actual effects on voting behavior cannot be presumed.

1.2 The TSE and OAS Findings on Foreign Interference

The OAS Electoral Observation Mission's preliminary report, published on October 6, provides an important independent assessment of the first round. The mission described voting as peaceful and orderly, commended the work of Brazilian electoral institutions, and reported that the official vote-tabulation process continued without interruption despite a temporary problem affecting the public results portal (OAS, 2026, pp. 1–5).

The report recorded concerns about political polarization, disinformation, electoral litigation, and statements made by foreign political actors. At the conclusion of the first round, TSE President Kassio Nunes Marques stated that no evidence had been found indicating foreign interference in the Brazilian electoral process. The OAS reproduced that statement while separately observing that foreign political commentary had included insults directed at a presidential candidate (OAS, 2026, p. 7).

The president's statement concerned the evidence identified at that stage of the election. It was not a judicial determination of the legality of every foreign measure affecting Brazil, nor could it resolve allegations arising after October 4. The OAS also recorded opposing views concerning restrictions on political communication: some electoral actors considered judicial intervention necessary to combat disinformation, while others regarded it as excessive interference with freedom of expression.

The distinction is significant for the October 25 runoff. Official findings about the administration of the first round must be respected, but they cannot predetermine the outcome of subsequent investigations. Similarly, the existence of competing accusations does not establish either electoral manipulation or the responsibility of a foreign government.

2. The International Law of Electoral Intervention

The prohibition of intervention protects the sovereign independence of states. Its central purpose is to prevent one state from coercively determining decisions that international law leaves to another state's political institutions. Choosing a president through constitutional elections belongs to that protected sphere, even though states must also respect international obligations concerning democratic participation and political rights.

International law does not prohibit every attempt to influence another country's political direction. Governments routinely criticize foreign leaders, negotiate trade advantages, express preferences concerning international partnerships, and support particular diplomatic positions. Such activities may affect an electoral debate without necessarily depriving the target state of its freedom to make sovereign decisions.

The difficult cases arise when external influence is reinforced by threats, economic penalties, or other measures intended to compel political choices. Coercion is central to the customary prohibition of intervention, but its precise threshold remains contested outside established examples involving military force or support for armed opposition. The applicable treaty obligations may also provide a more specific rule than customary international law.

2.1 The Nicaragua Judgment and the Requirement of Coercion

The International Court of Justice addressed the prohibition of intervention in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), decided on June 27, 1986. The Court explained that prohibited intervention concerns matters in which a state is entitled to decide freely, including the choice of its political, economic, social, and cultural system. Coercion is an essential element of the prohibited conduct (ICJ, 1986, paras. 202–205).

The judgment concerned American support for armed opposition to Nicaragua's government and other measures directed against the country. The Court found violations of customary international law involving intervention and the use of force, rejecting the justification advanced by the United States. Its reasoning also rejected the existence of a general right to intervene in support of another state's internal opposition merely because that opposition's political objectives were considered worthy (ICJ, 1986, paras. 206–209).

The Court reached a different conclusion concerning the particular economic restrictions examined in the proceedings. Nicaragua challenged the withdrawal of economic assistance, reductions in its sugar-import quota, and the US trade embargo. The Court did not regard those measures as breaches of the customary prohibition of intervention and declined to determine their consistency with international trade agreements, which raised separate jurisdictional questions (ICJ, 1986, paras. 244–245).

This qualification is essential to evaluating American pressure on Brazil. Serious economic consequences, political hostility, and an intention to influence another government are not automatically sufficient to establish prohibited intervention under customary law. The judgment does not establish that every form of economic coercion is lawful. It demonstrates that the legal classification of economic pressure cannot be inferred from its severity alone.

2.2 The OAS Charter and Economic Coercion

The Charter of the Organization of American States supplies a particularly relevant regional treaty framework. Article 19 prohibits direct or indirect intervention in another state's internal or external affairs and extends the prohibition beyond armed force to other forms of interference or attempted threats against the state's political, economic, and cultural independence (OAS Charter, 1948, as amended, art. 19).

Article 20 expressly prohibits states from using or encouraging economic or political coercion to force another state's sovereign will and obtain advantages of any kind. The provision is especially pertinent to tariffs accompanied by demands concerning judicial decisions or electoral participation. Its application requires consideration of the coercive measure, the sovereign decision targeted, and the advantage allegedly sought. A measure's political motivation alone does not establish every element of the prohibition (OAS Charter, art. 20).

These provisions are binding treaty obligations for the United States and Brazil. They must be distinguished from the customary rule examined by the ICJ in Nicaragua. The Court's conclusions concerning particular economic measures under customary international law cannot eliminate the separate obligations contained in Article 20.

The 1970 Friendly Relations Declaration also condemns the use of economic and political measures intended to coerce another state's sovereign decision-making (UN General Assembly, Resolution 2625 (XXV), 1970). The Declaration is not itself a treaty, although the ICJ has treated states' acceptance of its principles as evidence relevant to customary international law. Its provisions reinforce the legal importance of sovereign political independence without resolving every disputed application of economic coercion.

The legal question surrounding Brazil is consequently more specific than whether Washington has attempted to influence Brazilian politics. It concerns whether identifiable American measures sought to force Brazil to exercise its sovereign authority in a particular way and, if so, whether those measures breached customary international law, the OAS Charter, or another applicable international obligation.

3. US Tariffs and the Question of Electoral Coercion

American tariffs have become central to the debate over foreign pressure on Brazil's presidential election. Their legal significance cannot be assessed without distinguishing measures adopted under different statutory authorities, the purposes declared by Washington, and the political conditions reportedly discussed in bilateral negotiations.

The original confrontation developed partly from US objections to Brazilian judicial proceedings involving Jair Bolsonaro. Later trade measures relied on investigations conducted under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and addressed a wider range of Brazilian commercial policies. These developments belong to the same period of strained bilateral relations, but the existence of successive economic restrictions does not establish that they shared an identical purpose.

Three distinct legal questions arise. Were the measures authorized by US domestic law? Did they comply with international trade obligations? Were economic penalties employed to coerce Brazilian sovereign decisions, particularly concerning the judiciary or presidential election? The answers may differ because domestic constitutional law, WTO agreements, and the international prohibition of intervention impose different requirements.

3.1 The 2025 Tariffs and the Bolsonaro Judicial Dispute

On July 30, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14323, Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of Brazil. The order invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and imposed an additional 40% ad valorem duty on certain Brazilian products, subject to exemptions and rules governing overlapping duties. The White House described this measure as bringing the tariff burden on affected goods to 50% (White House, Executive Order 14323, 2025).

The executive order expressly criticized Brazilian officials over freedom of expression, the treatment of American technology companies, and judicial proceedings involving Jair Bolsonaro. It characterized the former president's prosecution as political persecution and argued that Brazilian actions threatened US national-security, foreign-policy, and economic interests. These were official assertions by the American administration, not independent judicial findings about the legality of Brazil's institutions.

The order also contemplated modification if Brazil took steps sufficiently aligned with the United States on the national-security, economic, and foreign-policy concerns identified by Washington. That conditional language is legally relevant. Unlike an ordinary tariff imposed exclusively for commercial objectives, the measure expressly linked economic restrictions to disagreements about Brazilian political and judicial conduct. Whether that connection satisfied the prohibition of coercive intervention is a separate question.

The domestic legal position changed substantially on February 20, 2026. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., the US Supreme Court held that IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The judgment resolved the statutory authority question without adjudicating whether the measures violated Brazil's sovereign rights under international law (US Supreme Court, 2026).

The same day, President Trump issued Executive Order 14389, Ending Certain Tariff Actions. It directed the termination of additional duties imposed under IEEPA, including those associated with Executive Order 14323. The order preserved measures unrelated to the imposition of those duties and expressly left tariffs imposed under separate statutory authorities unaffected (White House, Executive Order 14389, 2026).

The Supreme Court's ruling establishes an important distinction between domestic invalidity and international responsibility. A tariff can lack authorization under US law without that defect independently proving prohibited intervention under the OAS Charter or customary international law. Equally, domestic statutory authorization would not by itself establish compliance with international obligations. The original 2025 emergency-tariff measures cannot be presented as an unchanged regime operating during the October 2026 runoff.

3.2 The 2026 Tariffs and Brazil's WTO Complaint

A separate trade confrontation developed through investigations under Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974. On July 15, 2026, the Office of the United States Trade Representative announced additional tariffs of 25% on specified Brazilian products, following an investigation into practices Washington considered unreasonable and burdensome to American commerce.

The American investigation addressed digital trade and electronic payment services, preferential tariff arrangements, intellectual property protection, anti-corruption concerns, access to the ethanol market, and illegal deforestation. The United States maintained that these practices justified corrective trade action. Brazil disputed that assessment and challenged the resulting measures under international trade law (USTR, 2026; Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2026).

A second Section 301 investigation concerned allegations relating to forced labor and the enforcement of restrictions on products produced through such labor. It resulted in an additional 12.5% duty on Brazilian products, subject to exemptions. Although both measures relied on Section 301, they arose from different investigations and involved distinct legal and factual justifications.

On July 27, Brazil requested WTO consultations in United States — Additional Duties on Certain Products from Brazil, dispute DS646. Brazil challenged the 25% and 12.5% measures and alleged inconsistencies with Articles I:1 and II:1(a)–(b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, together with Articles 23.1 and 23.2(a) of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (WTO, 2026, WT/DS646/1).

The consultation request initiated formal dispute-settlement proceedings; it did not establish that the United States had violated the WTO agreements. China subsequently requested to join the consultations, while Washington formally accepted Brazil's request to enter consultations. The available WTO record establishes the existence and legal basis of the dispute without providing an adjudicated finding on its merits.

Even a finding of WTO inconsistency would not automatically establish unlawful electoral intervention. Trade rules regulate matters such as tariff commitments, nondiscrimination, and compliance with dispute-settlement procedures. The prohibition of intervention addresses interference with sovereign independence. A measure may engage both regimes, but each alleged breach requires its own legal analysis.

3.3 The Reported US Demands on Political Participation

A more direct connection between economic pressure and Brazil's presidential election emerged in September 2026. Reporting by O Estado de S. Paulo, subsequently corroborated by Folha de S.Paulo, described a document reportedly transmitted by American officials during negotiations in October 2025. The proposal contained several demands, including commitments concerning the participation of political dissidents in Brazil's 2026 presidential election (Folha de S.Paulo, September 17, 2026).

The reported language did not expressly identify Jair or Flávio Bolsonaro. Brazilian officials nevertheless interpreted it against the political circumstances surrounding the former president's judicial proceedings. According to the reporting, Brazilian negotiators rejected the proposed terms, and the disputed political-participation provisions did not become agreed conditions governing subsequent negotiations.

The complete authenticated diplomatic record has not been made publicly available in a form that conclusively establishes the proposal's institutional authorization, intended beneficiaries, and negotiating status. The available reporting supports scrutiny of the alleged demand, but not an assertion that Washington successfully imposed an electoral condition on Brazil or maintained that demand throughout the runoff campaign.

Its legal significance depends on the distinction between human rights advocacy and coercive intervention. International human rights law protects political participation and permits scrutiny of arbitrary restrictions on electoral eligibility. A diplomatic request that a state comply with applicable human rights obligations is not automatically unlawful. A demand that judicial decisions be changed to secure an electoral advantage for particular political actors raises a different question.

Under Article 20 of the OAS Charter, an economic ultimatum designed to force Brazil's sovereign will and obtain a political advantage could constitute prohibited coercion. The reported proposal deserves scrutiny precisely because it concerned domestic political participation rather than ordinary commercial bargaining. The evidence currently available, however, does not establish every factual element necessary for a definitive legal conclusion.

4. US Terrorist Designations and Brazilian Sovereignty

Washington's decision to designate two major Brazilian criminal organizations as terrorist groups introduced another source of tension into bilateral relations. On May 28, 2026, the United States designated Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) and Comando Vermelho (CV) as Specially Designated Global Terrorists under sanctions authorities associated with Executive Order 13224. Their separate designation as Foreign Terrorist Organizations took effect on June 5, following publication in the Federal Register (US Department of State, 2026, Public Notice 13030).

The two classifications operate through different legal mechanisms. Foreign Terrorist Organization designation under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act can engage criminal restrictions concerning the provision of material support and other immigration-related consequences. Specially Designated Global Terrorist status operates principally through financial sanctions, including the blocking of covered property and restrictions on transactions subject to US jurisdiction.

The political circumstances surrounding the announcement are particularly relevant. Flávio Bolsonaro visited Washington immediately before the designations, meeting President Donald Trump at the White House on May 26 and also holding discussions with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. According to Reuters, the senator said he had asked American officials to classify PCC and Comando Vermelho as terrorist organizations. He presented the request as part of his approach to combating organized crime in Brazil (Reuters, May 26–28, 2026).

The proximity between the meetings and the subsequent designations intensified accusations of foreign political involvement. Lula criticized the American decision as interference in Brazil's domestic affairs, while Bolsonaro and his allies defended the classifications as a necessary response to organized crime. The dispute reflected competing approaches to security cooperation and the legal treatment of criminal organizations. It also placed a US foreign-policy decision directly within Brazil's presidential debate.

These circumstances provide a concrete political connection between Flávio Bolsonaro and the American measures. They do not, by themselves, establish that Washington adopted the designations to determine the election result. A candidate's successful advocacy for a foreign policy decision may produce political advantages without necessarily constituting prohibited coercive intervention. The legal assessment must consider whether the United States sought to compel a sovereign Brazilian decision, rather than merely adopt a measure requested by a political actor.

Washington justified the designations by referring to the organizations' violence, transnational criminal activities, drug trafficking, and perceived threats to American security interests. These stated objectives must be examined alongside Brazil's objections, rather than accepted as conclusive proof of the measures' purpose. The existence of a security justification also does not automatically exclude the possibility that political considerations influenced the timing or presentation of the decision.

Brazilian law addresses organized crime and terrorism through distinct statutory regimes, including Law No. 12,850/2013 and Law No. 13,260/2016. The American classifications do not automatically alter the organizations' legal status under Brazilian criminal law. States may adopt different classifications within their respective jurisdictions, although their resulting measures remain subject to applicable international obligations.

The principal sovereignty question concerns the consequences Washington might seek to attach to the designations. An American designation does not, by itself, authorize US officials to conduct arrests, seizures, military operations, or other compulsory enforcement activities inside Brazilian territory. Such action would require Brazilian consent or another applicable basis under international law.

The distinction between prescribing legal rules and exercising enforcement jurisdiction is fundamental. States may regulate specified conduct and transactions with a sufficient jurisdictional basis, but they do not possess unlimited authority to enforce their laws within another sovereign state's territory. Unilateral criminal classifications cannot displace Brazil's territorial sovereignty or establish an independent entitlement to conduct coercive operations there.

The electoral dimension is a further question. A measure intended to disrupt international criminal financing is different from a threat to impose sanctions unless Brazilian authorities favor a particular presidential candidate. Evidence that Washington conditioned the designations, their withdrawal, or associated enforcement measures on Brazil's electoral choices would materially strengthen a claim of prohibited intervention.

The documented meetings between Flávio Bolsonaro and American officials make the political context of the designations relevant to the legal inquiry. Nevertheless, the available evidence establishes advocacy, diplomatic engagement, and a subsequent US policy decision, rather than a demonstrated effort to compel Brazilian institutions to alter the presidential election. The designations remain consequential for bilateral security relations, but their adoption alone does not establish an internationally wrongful electoral intervention.

5. Meta, Artificial Intelligence, and Campaign Bias

The controversy surrounding Meta raises questions distinct from the legality of American government measures. Meta operates Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, which provide important channels for political communication in Brazil. Decisions involving advertising access, account recommendations, automated moderation, and content distribution can affect electoral campaigns even when the underlying platform rules are intended to apply equally to competing candidates.

During October 2026, Lula's campaign alleged that Meta's systems disadvantaged its political communications while benefiting Flávio Bolsonaro. The allegations concerned several technical incidents rather than a single identifiable operation. Meta rejected accusations of partisan interference and attributed the problems to technical errors, security mechanisms, and efforts to comply with Brazilian electoral law.

The dispute has also exposed tensions between electoral equality and freedom of expression. Brazilian authorities have imposed restrictions intended to prevent disinformation, unlawful advertising, and preferential treatment by automated systems.

Technology companies must apply those rules while avoiding unjustified restrictions on legitimate political speech. Whether particular conduct violates Brazilian law is separate from whether it can be attributed to the US government under international law.

5.1 The TSE's Orders and Meta's Defense

On October 14, Lula's campaign brought allegations of unequal treatment before the Superior Electoral Court. The complaint concerned restrictions affecting political advertising and content distribution, together with inconsistent responses from Meta's artificial intelligence services. The campaign alleged that these problems disproportionately affected Lula during the presidential runoff.

On October 15, Justice Marco Aurélio Bellizze issued an interim decision requiring measures to protect equality between the campaigns. On October 16, the TSE unanimously upheld the order. The decision addressed restrictions on the distribution and recommendation of candidate-related publications and their availability through search functions. Noncompliance was initially subject to a daily penalty of R$500,000 (TSE, 2026; Agência Brasil, October 16, 2026).

The plenary's confirmation gave the interim order greater institutional authority, but it did not constitute a final judgment establishing deliberate partisan manipulation. Interim electoral measures may be adopted to prevent potential harm while contested facts remain under examination. A conditional financial penalty must also be distinguished from a sanction conclusively imposed and collected.

On October 19, Bellizze issued a further order requiring Meta to demonstrate compliance within 24 hours. The company had not supplied all the requested information within the original deadline, and the judge raised the conditional daily penalty from R$500,000 to R$1 million. The new order demanded explanations concerning recommendation systems, the reach of the candidates' advertisements, potentially inauthentic profiles, and the identification of AI-generated political content (Agência Brasil, October 19, 2026).

The following day, Bellizze met with Meta representatives and lawyers for both presidential campaigns. The meeting addressed the company's submissions concerning compliance with the court's orders and the measures adopted to protect equal treatment. Meta maintained that it had not favored either candidate and attributed the disputed incidents to technical problems (TSE, October 20, 2026).

The Electoral Public Prosecutor's Office subsequently examined Meta's responses. In an assessment reported on October 22, prosecutors concluded that the company had complied with only part of the court's requirements. Although certain restrictions had been reversed and some irregular advertising suspended, the assessment identified outstanding information concerning complaint handling, potentially inauthentic accounts, advertising records, and the equal application of content-moderation procedures.

Prosecutors also raised concerns about automated translation and AI-related content, including an alleged instance in which a critical comment concerning Flávio Bolsonaro was translated in a way that altered its political meaning. The prosecutorial assessment sought financial sanctions for insufficient compliance, but it was not a final judicial finding that Meta had deliberately manipulated the election (Electoral Public Prosecutor's Office, October 2026; CNN Brasil, October 22, 2026).

Separate proceedings broadened the regulatory scrutiny. On October 16, Brazil's National Data Protection Authority (ANPD) opened an administrative procedure concerning complaints about account suspensions, reduced content reach, removals, and the procedures available to contest moderation decisions. On October 19, it requested explanations from Meta and referred allegations with potential electoral implications to the TSE (ANPD, 2026).

On October 21, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office recommended stronger safeguards for freedom of expression and transparency in moderation. Through its Federal Prosecutor's Office for Citizens' Rights, it called for human review of specified automated restrictions, clearer explanations to affected users, and measures against arbitrary account suspensions. Federal prosecutors also initiated civil proceedings concerning restrictions on social media accounts (MPF, 2026).

These proceedings concern different aspects of platform accountability. The TSE's electoral case focuses on the treatment of presidential campaigns, while the ANPD's inquiry addresses data-protection and procedural obligations. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office has raised broader questions about the rights of users whose political and civic communications were restricted. None of these institutional actions should be treated as interchangeable with a final determination of intentional electoral favoritism.

5.2 Meta AI, Advertising Accounts, and Technical Evidence

One documented incident involved the temporary deactivation of Lula's campaign advertising account on September 23. Meta acknowledged that the account had been disabled for slightly more than an hour after an automated security system incorrectly identified a potential impersonation risk involving a government social program. The company stated that the restriction was an anti-fraud error and that advertisements already running were not interrupted (Meta, October 2026).

The distinction between an advertising account and an entire social media presence is important. Meta stated that Lula's official Facebook page and Instagram account were not suspended during that incident. Its acknowledgment establishes that an erroneous advertising restriction occurred, but not that the restriction resulted from partisan instructions or an intention to influence the election.

Another dispute concerned irregularities in displayed Reels engagement figures on October 7. Meta attributed these to a global counting problem affecting users in more than 100 countries. According to the company, the incident altered displayed view counts rather than the underlying distribution of content, and Flávio Bolsonaro's campaign also reported difficulties. Those explanations are relevant, although complete independent access to the underlying distribution records has not been established.

On October 9–10, a separate problem affected certain advertising-management functions. Meta attributed the incident to a software update and stated that the malfunction affected advertisers internationally. The company maintained that existing advertisements continued to run and that alternative procedures for creating advertisements remained available. The campaign-specific effects remain disputed, but the occurrence of a technical failure does not independently establish deliberate discrimination.

The Meta AI controversy concerned inconsistent responses to requests for politically related images. Lula's campaign alleged that some requests involving the president were refused while comparable requests involving Flávio Bolsonaro succeeded. Meta acknowledged a weakness in its safeguards involving combinations of common first names and electoral numbers. It maintained that the same weakness could affect requests concerning either candidate and stated that it corrected the problem on October 14 (Meta, 2026).

Technical evidence must be interpreted according to what it measures. A displayed engagement count is not identical to actual content distribution, and an individual chatbot response does not establish the behavior of an entire recommendation system.

A finding of systematic favoritism would require more extensive comparative evidence concerning advertising eligibility, delivery rates, moderation decisions, recommendation records, and the application of platform rules across both campaigns.

Meta's explanations cannot be treated as independent findings merely because they include technical detail. The company has a direct interest in defending its practices. At the same time, allegations of political discrimination cannot be established solely through isolated failures or differences in automated responses.

The Electoral Public Prosecutor's October assessment reinforces the distinction between acknowledged technical incidents and adequate regulatory compliance. A company may fail to document corrective measures or satisfy judicial information requirements without having deliberately favored a candidate. Conversely, identifying errors and claiming their correction does not conclusively establish that equal treatment was achieved. The unresolved technical questions justify continued judicial scrutiny without supplying a basis for attributing the conduct to Washington.

5.3 Electoral Neutrality and Platform Regulation

Brazil's regulation of digital campaigning is principally governed by Law No. 9,504/1997 and TSE Resolution No. 23,610/2019, as amended for the 2026 elections. The consolidated resolution addresses paid political promotion, identification of advertisers, online campaign accounts, manipulated content, and the responsibilities of internet platforms.

Resolution No. 23,732/2024 introduced restrictions concerning algorithmic recommendations of candidate and party accounts. Resolution No. 23,755/2026 added provisions addressing AI-generated electoral content and automated systems. Article 28, paragraph 1-C, prohibits providers offering artificial intelligence systems from ranking, recommending, suggesting, or prioritizing candidates, campaigns, political parties, federations, or coalitions. It also restricts automated expressions of electoral preference and direct or indirect political favoritism (TSE Resolution No. 23,610/2019, as amended).

These requirements complicate allegations that the removal of a candidate from an automated recommendation system necessarily demonstrates discriminatory treatment. A platform may be legally required to exclude candidate accounts from specified recommendations. The relevant question is whether the restriction was correctly and equally applied, whether the platform exceeded the applicable rule, and whether the resulting conduct breached an enforceable electoral obligation.

Two further amendments were adopted immediately before the runoff. Resolution No. 23,779, dated October 15, introduced an exception to the 48-hour waiting period for certain campaign internet addresses registered between electoral rounds. Such addresses may be used immediately after communication to the Electoral Court, subject to the conditions established by Article 28, paragraph 1-D.

Resolution No. 23,781, dated October 16, introduced Articles 33-E through 33-G to regulate the relationship between public messaging channels and official electoral campaigns. The provisions identify objective indicators of campaign collaboration or control, including financing, technical assistance, regular provision of campaign materials, and coordinated promotion. They also distinguish organized campaign activity from spontaneous political support by individuals (TSE Resolutions No. 23,779/2026 and No. 23,781/2026).

The distinction between independent political expression and activity attributable to an official campaign is consequential. A privately administered channel does not automatically become part of a campaign merely because it expresses support for a candidate. Conversely, sustained collaboration, material support, or coordination may bring a channel within the applicable electoral requirements.

The OAS observation mission identified concerns about the operation of these broader digital restrictions during the first round. Some candidates reported that limits on algorithmic recommendations reduced opportunities for organic audience growth and increased dependence on paid promotion. The mission also noted inconsistent judicial interpretations concerning AI-generated content and the possible removal of legitimate political communications (OAS, 2026, pp. 6–7).

Those findings expose a genuine tension between electoral neutrality and freedom of expression. Brazilian authorities may regulate unlawful advertising and deceptive digital content, but restrictions on political communication must remain consistent with applicable constitutional and human rights protections. The MPF's October recommendation and the ANPD's administrative inquiry demonstrate that platform accountability extends beyond disputes between presidential candidates.

The question of Meta's compliance consequently involves several legal regimes: electoral legislation, data protection, internet regulation, and freedom of expression. A domestic violation under any of these regimes would require its own evidentiary and legal determination. It would not automatically establish that Meta acted under instructions from Washington or that the United States breached the international prohibition of intervention.

6. Foreign-Funded Advertising and US State Responsibility

Evidence of political advertisements originating outside Brazil provides a concrete basis for examining foreign participation in the campaign. Unlike allegations drawn solely from individual platform experiences, advertising records can identify relevant transactions, publication periods, declared payment sources, and patterns of distribution. They do not necessarily reveal the ultimate ownership or political objectives of every advertiser.

Brazilian electoral law restricts paid political advertising to authorized actors and imposes requirements concerning sponsorship, transparency, and the origin of electoral resources. These restrictions protect the integrity of campaign financing and help voters identify who is paying to influence political debate. They operate independently of the customary international-law rule concerning coercive intervention by foreign states.

The resulting legal assessment has several dimensions. Unauthorized foreign-funded advertising may violate Brazilian electoral legislation. A platform may face separate questions about compliance with its regulatory obligations. Responsibility under international law, however, requires additional evidence connecting conduct to a state and demonstrating a breach of an applicable international obligation.

6.1 NetLab's Findings on Foreign Political Advertising

Research published on October 15, 2026, by NetLab at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro identified 1,613 political-electoral advertisements distributed through Meta platforms from foreign locations between July and September. NetLab assessed that the advertisements were sponsored by actors unauthorized to conduct paid electoral advertising in Brazil (NetLab UFRJ, 2026).

The advertisements were associated with 187 advertisers and approximately R$2 million in reported expenditure. The research also identified an estimated 171.1 million advertising impressions. These figures describe the scale of the activity recorded by NetLab; they do not establish the number of distinct individuals reached, the proportion of voters exposed, or changes in electoral preferences.

The identified advertising activity involved pages associated with the United States, Italy, Mexico, Bangladesh, and Colombia. Among the 1,076 advertisements for which location information was available, approximately 98.1% indicated the United States as the relevant origin. That percentage applies to the subset with identifiable location information and should not be presented as an independently established proportion of every advertisement in the dataset.

Many advertisements appeared through anonymous or recently created pages, sometimes using generic names and common declared payment sources. NetLab also identified instances in which advertisements initially circulated without appropriate identification as political content and were subsequently reclassified by Meta. The research characterized these patterns as evidence of weaknesses in the platform's supervision of electoral advertising (NetLab UFRJ, 2026).

The advertisements promoted or attacked different candidates, sometimes through contradictory political messages. This limits the conclusion that all the activity represented a single coordinated effort supporting Flávio Bolsonaro. Common technical characteristics or payment arrangements may justify investigating coordination, but they do not establish a unified political objective or governmental direction.

The location of a declared payer also does not conclusively identify the person or institution controlling an advertising operation. Accounts registered abroad may belong to individuals, companies, intermediaries, or organizations with different political interests. The available findings establish a significant transparency and electoral-compliance concern, but they do not identify the US government as the sponsor of the advertisements.

The findings also prompted international attention. On October 20, five civil society organizations requested congressional scrutiny in the United States of Meta's conduct during Brazil's election. Their concerns included foreign-funded advertising, content moderation, and the preservation of records relevant to the electoral process. The request demonstrated the wider institutional significance of the allegations, but it did not constitute a congressional finding of misconduct.

NetLab's published account supports scrutiny of the advertising activity and Meta's preventive controls. Its underlying dataset was not fully available for independent reconstruction through the public summary. The aggregate figures should consequently remain attributed to the research rather than presented as independently reproduced calculations.

6.2 State Attribution and the Limits of Digital Intervention

International responsibility requires more than proof that conduct originated abroad. Under Article 2 of the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, an internationally wrongful act requires conduct attributable to a state and conduct constituting a breach of that state's international obligations (ILC, 2001, art. 2).

Article 4 addresses the conduct of state organs, while Article 8 concerns persons or groups acting on a state's instructions or under its direction or control. Article 11 separately addresses conduct that a state subsequently acknowledges and adopts as its own. The Articles themselves are not a treaty, although significant provisions reflect customary international law, as recognized in international judicial practice and the ILC's commentary.

These attribution rules are distinct from the primary obligations governing intervention. Establishing that an act is attributable to a state does not independently establish its illegality. The relevant conduct must also violate an international obligation binding that state. Conversely, conduct may violate domestic electoral legislation without satisfying the attribution requirements of international state responsibility (ILC, 2001, arts. 2, 4, 8 and 11).

Applying these principles to Meta would require evidence connecting the disputed decisions to American governmental authority. The company's incorporation in the United States, relationships with government agencies, or alignment with particular political preferences would not by themselves establish attribution. Instructions directing specific acts, demonstrable governmental control over the conduct concerned, or its subsequent acknowledgment and adoption by the state could present a different legal question.

The same distinction applies to foreign-funded political advertising. Evidence that an advertiser operated from the United States does not establish that the advertiser was acting for Washington. Financial records, operational instructions, communications concerning campaign objectives, and the actual degree of governmental direction would be relevant to any claim of state responsibility.

Digital operations also present difficult questions about coercion. Manipulating official vote totals, disabling electoral infrastructure, or preventing competent authorities from carrying out essential electoral functions would present a stronger claim under the non-intervention principle than distributing partisan political messages. Both categories can threaten electoral integrity, but they do not necessarily satisfy the same international legal threshold.

The prohibition of intervention is not restricted to traditional military or diplomatic methods. Conduct carried out through digital technologies may violate it when the applicable requirements are satisfied. International law has not, however, established a universally accepted rule under which every covert influence campaign, misleading advertisement, or algorithmic irregularity constitutes coercive intervention.

Other legal obligations may apply even where prohibited interstate intervention is not established. Brazilian electoral legislation imposes requirements on political advertising and platform conduct, while the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights articulate non-binding expectations concerning corporate respect for human rights. The distinction between corporate responsibilities, domestic legal liability, and internationally wrongful state conduct must remain intact.

7. Electoral Rights, Accountability, and the Runoff Result

Protecting the integrity of Brazil's presidential election involves both sovereign rights and the individual rights of voters. Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) recognizes citizens' rights to participate in public affairs, vote and stand for election, and participate in genuine periodic elections. Article 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights provides related guarantees concerning political participation (ICCPR, 1966, art. 25; American Convention, 1969, art. 23).

These treaties have different relationships to Brazil and the United States. Both countries are parties to the ICCPR, while Brazil has also accepted the American Convention on Human Rights. The United States signed but has not ratified the American Convention and is not bound by it as a contracting state. The Convention's treaty obligations cannot be attributed indiscriminately to both governments merely because they participate in the inter-American system.

Brazil must organize its elections consistently with its applicable human rights obligations, including protections for political participation, electoral equality, and the freedom of voters to express their will. International scrutiny of these obligations is legitimate within the powers of the relevant institutions. Such scrutiny does not authorize foreign governments to dictate which Brazilian political figures may exercise governmental authority.

Electoral integrity also depends on protecting lawful political expression. Restrictions intended to prevent disinformation, unauthorized advertising, or manipulated content must be assessed against the risk of suppressing legitimate political debate. The protection of genuine elections does not justify treating every disputed political message as unlawful interference or every domestic regulatory decision as immune from human rights scrutiny.

7.1 Brazilian Electoral Litigation and Judicial Remedies

Brazilian electoral law provides mechanisms for investigating abuse of political or economic power and conduct that unlawfully compromises electoral competition. One such mechanism is the Ação de Investigação Judicial Eleitoral (AIJE), an electoral judicial investigation governed principally by Article 22 of Complementary Law No. 64/1990.

The procedure permits judicial examination of qualifying electoral abuses, subject to the applicable evidentiary and procedural requirements. Its consequences may include ineligibility or other electoral sanctions where the statutory conditions are satisfied. The commencement of an investigation does not establish that the alleged conduct occurred or that the accused candidate bears legal responsibility.

The 2026 presidential campaign generated proceedings initiated by opposing political camps. The OAS reported that Lula's supporting coalition requested an electoral investigation on September 23 concerning alleged foreign intervention involving Flávio Bolsonaro's candidacy. On September 28, Flávio Bolsonaro initiated proceedings alleging abuse of power and political authority by Lula and Alckmin (OAS, 2026, p. 7).

These proceedings demonstrate that allegations concerning foreign influence and abuse of authority entered Brazil's electoral justice system. Their existence cannot be treated as confirmation of either campaign's accusations. Any adverse judicial finding would need to identify the relevant conduct, responsible parties, applicable legal provisions, and evidence sufficient to support the legal consequences imposed.

A significant domestic precedent arose from Jair Bolsonaro's July 18, 2022 meeting with foreign ambassadors, during which he challenged the credibility of Brazil's electronic voting system. On June 30, 2023, the TSE ruled, by five votes to two, that Bolsonaro had abused political power and misused communication media. The Court declared him ineligible for eight years counted from the 2022 election (TSE, 2023, AIJE No. 0600814-85.2022.6.00.0000).

The majority's decision concerned the electoral use of presidential authority and communication channels. Walter Braga Netto, Bolsonaro's former vice-presidential candidate, was excluded from the sanction because his responsibility for the conduct had not been established. The judgment demonstrates the capacity of Brazilian electoral law to address abuse by domestic political authorities, but it did not find that the foreign ambassadors had committed prohibited interstate intervention simply by attending the meeting.

The precedent also cannot determine the outcome of unrelated proceedings in 2026. The legal classification of foreign-funded advertising, restrictions on campaign accounts, and alleged external political coordination depends on the specific facts and statutory requirements involved. A domestic electoral-law violation does not automatically establish the responsibility of a foreign state under international law.

7.2 International Remedies and Foreign Recognition

If Brazil established that another state had breached an applicable international obligation through prohibited electoral intervention, it could pursue diplomatic and legal responses. These might include formal protest, requests for cessation, assurances of non-repetition, or reparation where the requirements of international responsibility were satisfied. The ILC's Articles on State Responsibility address these consequences, particularly through Articles 30 and 31 (ILC, 2001).

International adjudication would require an appropriate jurisdictional basis. The International Court of Justice cannot exercise contentious jurisdiction over a bilateral dispute merely because one state alleges that another has violated international law. Jurisdiction must rest on the consent of the states concerned, expressed through an applicable treaty clause, jurisdictional declaration, special agreement, or another recognized basis.

Different international institutions also possess different mandates. The WTO may address claims arising under its covered agreements, but a dispute concerning tariffs does not automatically confer jurisdiction over alleged electoral coercion. The OAS provides diplomatic and institutional mechanisms concerning inter-American obligations, while its electoral observation missions perform a distinct function.

International observers examine electoral administration, campaign conditions, technology, and institutional practice. Their reports may contribute to public understanding and diplomatic assessments, but an observation mission does not exercise the powers of a domestic electoral court. Its findings must also be distinguished from final judicial determinations concerning violations of international law.

Foreign statements concerning the presidential result raise a related question. Governments may criticize electoral administration or express concern about alleged irregularities. Such statements can be politically consequential, particularly when made by influential foreign leaders, but criticism alone does not necessarily constitute prohibited intervention.

The legal position would be more serious if a foreign government threatened economic or political penalties to compel Brazilian institutions to alter an official result, disregard lawful procedures, or recognize a candidate contrary to the constitutional electoral process. Such conduct could directly implicate the sovereign political freedom protected by the prohibition of intervention and Article 20 of the OAS Charter.

The distinction between diplomatic recognition and control over an election is essential. Foreign governments may take positions concerning the international representation of another state, but those positions do not confer authority to determine the validity of votes or substitute an external political decision for the competent domestic institutions.

As of October 23, Brazil's presidential runoff remains scheduled for October 25. The official second-round result, any subsequent electoral litigation, and foreign reactions to the declared outcome are future developments. Their legality cannot be determined through speculation about possible statements, challenges, or political responses.

Conclusion

The legality of US pressure surrounding Brazil's 2026 presidential election depends on the character, purpose, and effects of each measure. The 2025 tariff confrontation had an explicit connection to Brazilian judicial affairs, while the separate 2026 Section 301 measures generated a dispute concerning international trade obligations. The US Supreme Court's rejection of IEEPA as a source of presidential tariff authority resolved an important domestic legal question without adjudicating whether the earlier economic pressure violated Brazil's sovereign independence.

Reported American demands concerning political participation raise a more direct question of possible coercion. If economic relief were conditioned on Brazil altering judicial or electoral decisions to secure advantages for particular political actors, Article 20 of the OAS Charter would become especially relevant. The available diplomatic record does not, however, conclusively establish the authority, continuing application, or implementation of the reported proposal.

The terrorist designations present a politically significant connection between Flávio Bolsonaro and the Trump administration. His advocacy in Washington, followed by the American decision to classify PCC and Comando Vermelho as terrorist organizations, makes the timing and political consequences of the measures relevant. Nevertheless, political coordination or advocacy does not independently establish coercive intervention in Brazil's sovereign electoral decisions.

Meta's alleged unequal treatment of the campaigns and NetLab's findings concerning foreign-funded political advertising raise substantial issues under Brazilian electoral legislation. The TSE's orders and the Electoral Public Prosecutor's October assessment demonstrate that questions of regulatory compliance remain unresolved. Their international legal significance depends on evidence extending beyond the nationality of the company, the location of advertisers, or the political orientation of particular messages.

The OAS Charter expressly prohibits coercive economic and political intervention, while the ICJ's Nicaragua judgment establishes the importance of coercion under customary international law. These authorities protect sovereign political independence without prohibiting every form of external diplomatic influence. Establishing a breach requires attention to the applicable legal obligation and evidence showing that the conduct crossed its threshold.

Brazil's constitutional institutions retain authority to administer the presidential election, investigate unlawful campaign conduct, and determine its official result. International law protects that sovereign authority while also imposing obligations concerning genuine political participation and fundamental rights.

The documented record justifies serious scrutiny of American pressure and foreign activity surrounding the election. It does not presently support a definitive finding that the United States has committed unlawful intervention to determine the October 25 runoff result. That conclusion reflects the limits of the established evidence, rather than a presumption that economic coercion or foreign electoral interference would necessarily be lawful.

References

Agência Nacional de Proteção de Dados (ANPD) (2026) ANPD pede explicações à Meta sobre denúncias de violações na suspensão de contas e remoção de conteúdos [online]. 19 October. Available at: https://www.gov.br/anpd/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/anpd-pede-explicacoes-a-meta-sobre-denuncias-de-violacoes-na-suspensao-de-contas-e-remocao-de-conteudos (Accessed: 22 October 2026).

American Convention on Human Rights (1969) Adopted 22 November 1969, entered into force 18 July 1978, OAS Treaty Series No. 36, 1144 UNTS 123. Available at: https://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.htm (Accessed: 22 October 2026).

Brazil (1988) Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Promulgated 5 October 1988, as amended. Brasília: Presidência da República. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm (Accessed: 22 October 2026).

Brazil (1990) Lei Complementar nº 64, de 18 de maio de 1990. Estabelece casos de inelegibilidade, prazos de cessação e outras providências. Brasília: Presidência da República. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/lcp/lcp64.htm (Accessed: 22 October 2026).

Brazil (1997) Lei nº 9.504, de 30 de setembro de 1997. Estabelece normas para as eleições. Brasília: Presidência da República. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9504.htm (Accessed: 22 October 2026).

Brazil (2013) Lei nº 12.850, de 2 de agosto de 2013. Define organização criminosa e dispõe sobre investigação criminal, meios de obtenção da prova e infrações penais correlatas. Brasília: Presidência da República. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2013/lei/l12850.htm (Accessed: 22 October 2026).

Brazil (2016) Lei nº 13.260, de 16 de março de 2016. Regulamenta o disposto no inciso XLIII do art. 5º da Constituição Federal, disciplinando o terrorismo. Brasília: Presidência da República. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2016/lei/l13260.htm (Accessed: 22 October 2026).

Charter of the Organization of American States (1948) Adopted 30 April 1948, entered into force 13 December 1951, 119 UNTS 3, as amended. Available at: https://www.oas.org/juridico/english/charter.html (Accessed: 22 October 2026).

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (1994) Annex 1A to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995, 1867 UNTS 187. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/06-gatt_e.htm (Accessed: 22 October 2026).

Hermanson, M., Brasil, M., Menon, I. and Albernaz, I. (2026) ‘Governo Trump exigiu que “dissidentes políticos” fossem autorizados a participar de eleição no Brasil’, Folha de S.Paulo, 17 September [online]. Available at: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2026/09/governo-trump-exigiu-que-dissidentes-politicos-fossem-autorizados-a-participar-de-eleicao-no-brasil.shtml (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) Adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 171. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ShowDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280004bf5 (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103143 (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries. Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-Third Session, UN Doc. A/56/10, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Menon, I. (2026) ‘Organizations ask US Congress to investigate Meta’s role in Brazilian election’, Folha de S.Paulo, 21 October [online]. Available at: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2026/10/organizations-ask-us-congress-to-investigate-metas-role-in-brazilian-election.shtml (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Meta (2026) A Meta não está interferindo nas eleições brasileiras. Estes são os fatos [online]. Published 16 October, updated 18 October. Available at: https://about.fb.com/br/news/2026/10/a-meta-nao-esta-interferindo-nas-eleicoes-brasileiras-estes-sao-os-fatos/ (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Ministério Público Federal (MPF) (2026) MPF recomenda à Meta medidas para garantir a liberdade de expressão e transparência na moderação de conteúdo durante as eleições [online]. 21 October. Brasília: Procuradoria-Geral da República. Available at: https://www.mpf.mp.br/o-mpf/unidades/procuradoria-geral-da-republica-pgr/noticias/mpf-recomenda-a-meta-medidas-para-garantir-a-liberdade-de-expressao-e-transparencia-na-moderacao-de-conteudo-durante-as-eleicoes (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

NetLab UFRJ (2026) Meta lucra com anúncios irregulares promovidos por redes coordenadas para influenciar as eleições no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Observatório das Big Tech. 15 October. Available at: https://netlab.eco.ufrj.br/post/meta-lucra-com-an%C3%BAncios-irregulares-promovidos-por-redes-coordenadas-para-influenciar-as-elei%C3%A7%C3%B5es-no (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (2011) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. Geneva: United Nations, HR/PUB/11/4. Available at: https://searchlibrary.ohchr.org/record/11593?ln=en (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) (2026) USTR Section 301 Action on Brazil’s Unreasonable Acts, Policies, and Practices [online]. 15 July. Washington, DC: USTR. Available at: https://www.ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2026/july/ustr-section-301-action-brazils-unreasonable-acts-policies-and-practices (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Organization of American States (OAS) (2026) Preliminary Report of the OAS Electoral Observation Mission in Brazil. Washington, DC: OAS, 6 October. Available at: https://www.oas.org/fpdb/press/2026_EOM_Brazil_General_Elections_First_Report_ENG.pdf (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Pontes, F. (2026) ‘TSE dá 24 horas para Meta dar informações sobre igualdade de campanhas’, Agência Brasil, 19 October [online]. Available at: https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/justica/noticia/2026-10/tse-da-24-horas-para-meta-dar-informacoes-sobre-igualdade-de-campanhas (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Reuters (2026) ‘US to designate two Brazilian gangs as “terrorist organizations,” Rubio says’, Reuters, 28 May [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-intends-designate-two-brazilian-gangs-terrorist-organizations-rubio-says-2026-05-28/ (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE) (2019) Resolução nº 23.610, de 18 de dezembro de 2019. Dispõe sobre a propaganda eleitoral, as condutas ilícitas praticadas em campanha e o horário eleitoral gratuito, as amended. Brasília: TSE. Available at: https://www.tse.jus.br/legislacao/compilada/res/2019/resolucao-no-23-610-de-18-de-dezembro-de-2019 (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE) (2023) Por maioria de votos, TSE declara Bolsonaro inelegível por 8 anos [online]. 30 June. Electoral Judicial Investigation No. 0600814-85.2022.6.00.0000. Available at: https://www.tse.jus.br/comunicacao/noticias/2023/Junho/por-maioria-de-votos-tse-declara-bolsonaro-inelegivel-por-8-anos (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE) (2024) Resolução nº 23.732, de 27 de fevereiro de 2024. Altera a Resolução-TSE nº 23.610/2019, dispondo sobre a propaganda eleitoral. Brasília: TSE. Available at: https://www.tse.jus.br/legislacao/compilada/res/2024/resolucao-no-23-732-de-27-de-fevereiro-de-2024 (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE) (2026a) Flávio Bolsonaro (PL) e Lula (PT) vão disputar o 2º turno para a Presidência da República [online]. 5 October. Brasília: TSE. Available at: https://www.tse.jus.br/comunicacao/noticias/2026/Outubro/flavio-bolsonaro-e-lula-vao-disputar-o-2o-turno-para-a-presidencia-da-republica (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE) (2026b) Resolução nº 23.755, de 2 de março de 2026. Altera a Resolução nº 23.610/2019, que dispõe sobre propaganda eleitoral. Brasília: TSE. Available at: https://www.tse.jus.br/legislacao/compilada/res/2026/resolucao-no-23-755-de-2-de-marco-de-2026 (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE) (2026c) Resolução nº 23.779, de 15 de outubro de 2026. Altera a Resolução nº 23.610/2019, que dispõe sobre a propaganda eleitoral. Brasília: TSE. Available at: https://www.tse.jus.br/legislacao/compilada/res/2026/resolucao-no-23-779-de-15-de-outubro-de-2026 (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE) (2026d) Resolução nº 23.781, de 16 de outubro de 2026. Altera a Resolução nº 23.610/2019, que dispõe sobre a propaganda eleitoral. Brasília: TSE. Available at: https://www.tse.jus.br/legislacao/compilada/res/2026/resolucao-no-23-781-de-16-de-outubro-de-2026 (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE) (2026e) TSE ouve Meta sobre cumprimento de decisão que exige igualdade de tratamento entre campanhas [online]. 20 October. Brasília: TSE. Available at: https://www.tse.jus.br/comunicacao/noticias/2026/Outubro/tse-ouve-meta-sobre-cumprimento-de-decisao-que-exige-igualdade-de-tratamento-entre-campanhas (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (1994) Annex 2 to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995, 1869 UNTS 401. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/28-dsu_e.htm (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

United Nations General Assembly (1970) Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, Resolution 2625 (XXV), UN Doc. A/RES/2625(XXV), 24 October. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/docs/A_RES_2625-Eng.pdf (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

United States Department of State (2026a) Foreign Terrorist Organization Designation of Primeiro Comando da Capital and Comando Vermelho. Public Notice 13030, dated 28 May, published 5 June, 91 Federal Register 34267, FR Doc. 2026-11323. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-06-05/html/2026-11323.htm (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

United States Department of State (2026b) Specially Designated Global Terrorist Designations of Primeiro Comando da Capital and Comando Vermelho. Public Notice 13031, dated 28 May, published 5 June, 91 Federal Register 34266, FR Doc. 2026-11324. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-06-05/html/2026-11324.htm (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

United States Supreme Court (2026) Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., Judgment of 20 February 2026, Nos. 24-1287 and 25-250, 607 U.S. ___ (2026). Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

Uribe, G. (2026) ‘MP Eleitoral aponta que Meta não cumpriu todas as determinações do TSE’, CNN Brasil, 22 October [online]. Available at: https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/blogs/gustavo-uribe/eleicoes/mp-eleitoral-aponta-que-meta-nao-cumpriu-todas-as-determinacoes-do-tse/ (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

White House (2025) Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of Brazil. Executive Order 14323, 30 July. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/addressing-threats-to-the-us/ (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

White House (2026) Ending Certain Tariff Actions. Executive Order 14389, 20 February. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/02/ending-certain-tariff-actions/ (Accessed: 23 October 2026).

World Trade Organization (WTO) (2026) United States — Additional Duties on Certain Products from Brazil. Dispute DS646, request for consultations by Brazil, WT/DS646/1, 27 July. Geneva: WTO. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds646_e.htm (Accessed: 23 October 2026).