American business leaders are questioning if Brazil is becoming uninvestable
Quando um regulador estrangeiro escreve a outro para questionar decisões soberanas de um país, algo mais profundo do que a diplomacia técnica está em jogo. Brendan Carr, comissário da FCC americana, enviou uma carta à Anatel brasileira criticando o bloqueio da plataforma X e as ameaças à licença da Starlink, descrevendo as ações como 'aparentemente ilegais e partidárias'. O gesto revela uma tensão crescente entre a soberania regulatória nacional e a lógica transnacional do capital tecnológico — uma tensão que nenhum país, rico ou emergente, consegue mais ignorar.
- A carta de Carr chegou como um sinal de alarme: líderes empresariais americanos já estariam questionando em voz alta se o Brasil se tornou um mercado 'sem condições de receber investimentos'.
- O bloqueio do X, ordenado pelo ministro Alexandre de Moraes e executado pela Anatel junto às operadoras, é enquadrado pelo comissário não como regulação, mas como censura inconstitucional.
- A ameaça de revogar as licenças da Starlink — empresa de Elon Musk, dono também do X — ampliou o conflito para além das redes sociais, atingindo infraestrutura crítica de telecomunicações.
- Carr, indicado por Trump e reconduzido por Biden, pediu uma reunião com o presidente da Anatel e sinalizou disposição para viajar ao Brasil, transformando uma carta em potencial confronto diplomático.
- O episódio coloca a Anatel diante de uma escolha delicada: responder à pressão externa como intromissão indevida ou abrir um canal de diálogo que reconheça as preocupações levantadas.
Na quinta-feira, Brendan Carr, um dos cinco comissários da Comissão Federal de Comunicações dos Estados Unidos, enviou uma carta a Carlos Baigorri, presidente da Anatel, com um aviso direto: as ações do Brasil contra a plataforma X e a Starlink estão corroendo a confiança de investidores estrangeiros no país.
O tom começou cordial, reconhecendo a parceria histórica entre as duas agências reguladoras. Mas logo ficou áspero. Carr descreveu a conduta da Anatel como 'aparentemente ilegal e partidária', criticando tanto o bloqueio do X — determinado pelo ministro Alexandre de Moraes — quanto as ameaças de cassação das licenças da Starlink, empresa de Elon Musk, que também é dono da rede social.
Para Carr, o problema vai além do procedimento. Executivos americanos, segundo ele, já debatem abertamente se o Brasil está se tornando um mercado inviável para investimentos de longo prazo. A imprevisibilidade regulatória e o que ele chama de interferência política estariam destruindo a estabilidade que empresas multinacionais exigem antes de assumir compromissos duradouros.
O comissário enquadrou o bloqueio do X como censura e uma violação da própria Constituição brasileira, e alertou que as ações ameaçam a relação institucional entre FCC e Anatel — construída sobre princípios de reciprocidade e independência regulatória. Carr pediu uma reunião com Baigorri e indicou que viajaria ao Brasil se necessário.
O que torna a intervenção notável é sua franqueza: uma decisão regulatória doméstica foi reposicionada como questão de interesse internacional. Resta saber se o Brasil vai encarar a carta como engajamento construtivo ou como pressão indevida vinda de fora de suas fronteiras.
On Thursday, Brendan Carr, one of five commissioners at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, sent a letter to Carlos Baigorri, the head of Brazil's telecommunications regulator Anatel, with a stark warning: the country's actions against the social media platform X and the satellite internet company Starlink are damaging Brazil's reputation as a place where foreign companies can invest with confidence.
Carr's letter began diplomatically enough, acknowledging the partnership between the two agencies and their parallel roles in regulating communications in their respective countries. But the tone shifted quickly. He described Anatel's conduct as "apparently illegal and partisan," singling out both the ban on X—ordered by Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes—and threats to revoke Starlink's operating licenses. Starlink is owned by Elon Musk, who also owns X.
The commissioner's concern was not merely procedural. He argued that these enforcement actions, publicly backed by the Lula administration, were already reverberating through business circles in the United States. American corporate leaders, Carr wrote, were openly asking whether Brazil was becoming an "uninvestable market." The regulatory unpredictability and what he characterized as political interference were eroding the kind of market stability that multinational companies need to justify long-term commitments.
Carr framed the X ban itself as censorship, a violation of Brazil's own constitution. Anatel, he noted, had been the agency responsible for implementing the ban through orders to internet service providers across the country. He also suggested that these actions threatened the institutional relationship between the FCC and Anatel—a partnership built on principles of reciprocity, rule of law, and regulatory independence.
The letter was not merely a complaint. Carr requested a meeting with Baigorri and indicated he would travel to Brazil if necessary to discuss the matter. His position carries some weight: he was appointed to the FCC by former President Donald Trump in 2018 for a five-year term and was reappointed by President Joe Biden for another term extending to 2028. He is known as an advocate for free speech in digital spaces.
What made Carr's intervention notable was its directness and its framing of a domestic Brazilian regulatory decision as a matter of international concern. The letter suggested that how Brazil treats foreign tech companies and their operations would influence whether American investors see the country as a reliable place to do business. In an era when tech companies operate globally and investment flows across borders, such warnings carry real weight. The question now is whether Anatel and Brazilian officials will view Carr's letter as constructive engagement or as unwelcome pressure from a foreign regulator.
Notable Quotes
These punitive actions—backed publicly by the Lula administration—are already shaking confidence in the stability and predictability of Brazil's regulated markets, and U.S. business leaders are openly questioning whether Brazil is becoming an uninvestable market.— Brendan Carr, FCC Commissioner, in letter to Anatel
Serious and apparently illegal actions against X and Starlink are not compatible with the principles of reciprocity, rule of law, and independence that have formed the basis of the FCC-Anatel relationship and reciprocal foreign investment.— Brendan Carr, FCC Commissioner, in letter to Anatel
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would an American regulator care about what Brazil does with X? Isn't that an internal matter?
On the surface, yes. But Starlink operates in Brazil under a license, and Elon Musk owns both companies. When one country threatens to revoke licenses or ban platforms, it signals to other foreign investors that the rules might change suddenly for political reasons. That's what Carr is really warning about.
So this is about investor confidence, not free speech?
It's both. Carr genuinely believes the ban is censorship. But his letter emphasizes the investment angle because that's the language that resonates with business leaders and policymakers. He's saying: if you treat companies this way, capital will go elsewhere.
Does the FCC actually have any power over Brazil?
No direct power. But the FCC regulates American companies and can influence how the U.S. government responds. A damaged relationship between the two agencies could affect future cooperation on telecommunications standards, spectrum allocation, and other technical matters.
Is Carr's concern about political interference fair?
That depends on your view of Alexandre de Moraes's decision. Supporters say he was protecting democracy from disinformation. Critics say he overreached. Carr is clearly in the critic camp, and he's using his platform to say so.
What happens if Brazil ignores this letter?
Probably nothing immediate. But it signals to American investors that Brazil may not be a stable place to invest in tech. That's a real cost, even if it's not enforced through formal sanctions.