It is him and his behavior, his ideology being placed ahead of the people
Em meio ao anúncio de tarifas americanas de 25% sobre produtos brasileiros, o senador Flávio Bolsonaro escolheu reinterpretar a medida não como uma decisão de política comercial, mas como um julgamento moral sobre o presidente Lula — transformando uma disputa econômica em munição eleitoral. A história, porém, guarda uma tensão silenciosa: o mesmo político que culpa publicamente o adversário havia, dias antes, pedido em privado aos Estados Unidos que poupasse o Brasil. Nesse espaço entre o gesto diplomático e o discurso de palanque, revela-se algo mais antigo do que qualquer tarifa — a tendência humana de separar a responsabilidade da conveniência.
- Os Estados Unidos anunciaram tarifas de 25% sobre produtos brasileiros, citando ordens judiciais secretas contra empresas de tecnologia, o banimento do X e o duplo papel do Banco Central como regulador e operador do Pix.
- Flávio Bolsonaro, candidato em formação, declarou publicamente que não são as empresas brasileiras que estão sendo tarifadas, mas o próprio Lula — sua ideologia, seu antiamericanismo, seu comportamento diplomático.
- A contradição veio à tona rapidamente: dias antes do discurso, Flávio havia enviado uma carta ao secretário de Estado Marco Rubio pedindo exatamente a isenção do Brasil das tarifas que agora atribui ao rival.
- O Palácio do Planalto havia tentado obstruir a investigação americana que originou as tarifas, mas fracassou — deixando o governo sem defesa clara e a oposição livre para ocupar o vácuo narrativo.
- A questão que permanece aberta é se o eleitorado brasileiro distinguirá entre o lobista que agiu nos bastidores e o político que, diante das câmeras, apontou o dedo para o outro lado.
Na terça-feira, o senador Flávio Bolsonaro apresentou as novas tarifas americanas de 25% sobre produtos brasileiros não como uma decisão de política comercial, mas como uma punição pessoal ao presidente Lula. "Não são as empresas brasileiras que estão sendo tarifadas", afirmou. "É o presidente Lula. É ele e seu comportamento, seu antiamericanismo, sua ideologia colocada acima dos interesses do povo brasileiro." A declaração veio uma semana após Flávio se reunir com Donald Trump em Washington para tratar de questões de segurança — encontro que ele fez questão de dissociar das tarifas, atribuindo a origem da medida a ações que remontam a 2025.
O argumento, porém, carregava uma fissura visível. Poucos dias antes do discurso público, Flávio havia enviado uma carta ao secretário de Estado Marco Rubio pedindo que os Estados Unidos isentassem o Brasil das tarifas. Ele lobbied ativamente contra a medida que agora descrevia como consequência natural das escolhas de Lula. Pessoas próximas ao senador indicaram que ele havia sido aconselhado a se distanciar de qualquer aparência de apoio às tarifas — sinal de que o terreno político era mais instável do que o tom assertivo de suas declarações sugeria.
Do lado americano, o Escritório do Representante Comercial justificou as tarifas com base em três pontos: ordens judiciais secretas contra grandes empresas de tecnologia, o banimento da plataforma X em 2024, e o que classificou como conflito de interesse estrutural no Banco Central brasileiro, que atua simultaneamente como regulador e operador do sistema de pagamentos Pix. O governo Lula havia tentado bloquear a investigação que originou essas conclusões, mas sem sucesso.
Com as tarifas anunciadas e o desgaste político em curso, Flávio apostou numa narrativa de dupla face: apresentar-se como defensor dos interesses brasileiros enquanto responsabiliza o adversário pela retaliação americana. Se essa estratégia resistirá ao escrutínio — ou se a distância entre o lobista dos bastidores e o crítico das câmeras se tornará o próprio tema da disputa — ainda estava por ser definido.
On Tuesday, opposition senator Flávio Bolsonaro stood before cameras and reframed the Trump administration's newly announced 25 percent tariffs on Brazilian goods as something other than what they appeared to be. The tariffs, he argued, were not really aimed at Brazilian companies at all. They were aimed at President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—a personal punishment for what Bolsonaro called the president's "anti-American sentiment" and ideological hostility toward the United States.
Flávio, who is positioning himself as a presidential candidate for his party, was explicit about this interpretation. "It is not Brazilian enterprises that are being tariffed," he said. "It is President Lula who is being tariffed. It is him and his behavior, his threats against the United States, his anti-American sentiment. It is his ideology being placed ahead of the interests of the Brazilian people, and that is what could cause Brazilian companies to be tariffed once again." He went further, insisting that the tariffs were the result of actions that began in 2025 and had nothing to do with his own recent visit to Washington, where he met with President Donald Trump a week earlier to discuss Brazilian security concerns.
But the political positioning contained an internal contradiction that sources close to the situation were quick to notice. Just days before making these public statements, Flávio had sent a letter directly to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio asking the American government to exempt Brazil from the new tariffs. He had been actively lobbying against the very measure he was now describing as Lula's fault. According to people familiar with the matter, Flávio had been advised to distance himself from any appearance of supporting the tariffs—a sign that the political calculus around the issue was delicate and shifting.
The U.S. Trade Representative's office had justified the tariffs by citing what it called "secret court orders" against major technology companies, pointing specifically to Brazil's 2024 ban of the social media platform X. The office also flagged what it viewed as a structural conflict of interest: Brazil's central bank, the BCB, functions simultaneously as both a regulator and an operator of Pix, the country's digital payment system. These concerns, along with other issues, formed the basis for the tariff recommendation that ultimately reached the White House.
Meanwhile, the Planalto Palace—the seat of Brazil's executive branch—had spent recent months attempting to obstruct the U.S. investigation that led to these tariffs. The government had tried to prevent the inquiry from moving forward, but the effort had failed. Now, with the tariffs announced and the political fallout beginning, Flávio's strategy was to position himself as the defender of Brazilian interests while simultaneously blaming the sitting president for inviting American retaliation through his foreign policy stance. Whether that argument would resonate with voters, or whether the contradiction between his private lobbying and public blame-shifting would undermine his credibility, remained to be seen.
Citas Notables
It is not Brazilian enterprises that are being tariffed. It is President Lula who is being tariffed—it is him and his behavior, his threats against the United States, his anti-American sentiment.— Flávio Bolsonaro, opposition senator
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would Flávio blame Lula for tariffs that the U.S. justified on technical grounds—the X ban, the central bank's dual role?
Because in Brazilian politics, everything is personal. The tariffs give him a weapon. He can say Lula's ideology caused this, not economic reality. It's a cleaner story than admitting the U.S. has legitimate regulatory complaints.
But he was just lobbying against these same tariffs. Doesn't that undermine what he's saying now?
It does, which is why his advisors told him to distance himself from that position. He's trying to have it both ways—he fought the tariffs privately, but publicly he's blaming Lula. It's a political maneuver, not a coherent argument.
What does this tell us about how Brazil's opposition sees the U.S. relationship?
That they're willing to use American pressure as a cudgel against their domestic rivals. Flávio isn't defending Brazil from tariffs; he's using tariffs to attack Lula. The actual companies being hit are secondary to the political game.
And the Planalto's attempt to block the investigation—does that matter to Flávio's argument?
It complicates it. If Lula's government was trying to stop the investigation, then maybe the U.S. was justified in moving forward. Flávio doesn't mention that part. He just focuses on the ideology angle, which is easier to sell politically.