When Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva warned that “they will try to interfere in the Brazilian elections,” he was not referring only to a diplomatic dispute between Brazil and the U.S. He was pointing to a broader geopolitical struggle over Brazil’s place in the world and over whether Latin America will continue to be treated as an exclusive sphere of influence by Washington.
Brazil’s Sovereignty Under Pressure
Lula’s response has been deliberately measured: Brazil wants respect, and its elections are not up for foreign interference. Still, Washington’s actions are getting harder to brush off as mere bilateral spats. From tariffs imposed during Bolsonaro’s coup trial to new trade measures, sanctions, and the latest diplomatic slap, the Trump administration has steadily blended economic and political pressure on Brazil.
Brasília now sees a pattern, and with the October 4 election approaching, worries that the next battleground to turn Brazil into a right-wing-governed country could be the ballot box itself.
Meanwhile, the United States seems more and more inclined to treat Brazil not just as a complicated partner, but as a strategic problem to be adjusted into its grand plans. Trump, and especially Marco Rubio’s State Department, have pressured Brasília, clashed with Brazil’s judiciary, shown open hostility to Lula’s government, and openly engaged with the Bolsonaro camp, creating the unambiguous perception of an effort to alter Brazil’s political environment.
Officially, the US denies meddling, but the issue of two State Department personnel who had worked in Europe supporting far-right-wing groups, who have been denied visas to enter Brazil, keeps things murky.
If the goal really is, as Brasília suspects, to push Brazil away from Lula’s left wing, its independent foreign policy, and toward a government more agreeable, submissive to Washington, then we’re no longer talking about ordinary diplomacy. It’s the old hemispheric struggle all over again—just wearing a new mask: a United States intent on steering the future of Latin America’s biggest democracy.
But the timing and the accumulation of moves are politically explosive.
Escalation goes deeper
The latest escalation between Brazil and the United States has transformed what was once a difficult bilateral relationship into one of the most serious crises in modern U.S.–Brazil diplomacy.
Washington’s decision to revoke the multiple-entry visa of Brazil’s ambassador to the United States, Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti (which means that if the ambassador leaves the U.S. for any diplomatic commitment, she cannot re-enter), represents an extraordinary measure never before seen between two countries that traditionally describe themselves as partners.
The move came after Brazil refused to approve Washington’s ambassadorial nominee, Daniel Perez, a member of Trump’s MAGA political base from Florida, before the American Congress had approved him, where he faced difficulties with approval. Having the ambassador received the agrément from Brazil, Trump would like to put pressure on Congress. Another reason for Brazil purposely following the diplomatic rite is that Perez is from the MAGA base and is afraid of his active internal interference in the coming elections and politics, as he has already committed himself to the far-right groups of Latin America.
Further disagreement centres on U.S. State Department officials not receiving visas to visit Brazil during the electoral campaign, as these two officials had previously served in similar assignments in Europe with far-right-wing groups, and on accusations from Brasília that American actions risked influencing domestic politics.
The controversy goes beyond diplomatic protocol. It touches the central question of sovereignty: who has the right to influence the political future of the largest country in Latin America?
Brazilian officials argue that Washington’s pressure — combining diplomatic confrontation, trade measures, sanctions against the Justice that have condemned Bolsonaro, and political engagement with opposition figures and far-right groups — creates an atmosphere in which foreign policy becomes an instrument of electoral influence. Bolsonaro’s second son, Eduardo, has moved to the U.S. to lobby in favour of the measures the Trump government has taken against Brazil.
The political perception in Brasília is that Brazil has become a strategic battlefield. The reason is simple: Brazil matters.
Geopolitics speaks
With more than 200 million inhabitants, enormous natural resources, one of the world’s largest agricultural sectors, significant energy reserves, one of the world’s highest levels of clean and renewable energy grids, significant advances in high technology such as avionics (Embraer is the third biggest commercial jet manufacturer) and digital payment (Pix was placed by the IMF director as a model), and growing influence in the Global South, Brazil is not merely another Latin American country. It is the regional power whose diplomatic choices can affect the balance between the United States and China.
This explains why Secretary of State Marco Rubio has repeatedly highlighted Brazil as a major challenge for U.S. strategy in the hemisphere (“Brazil is our next challenge”). Washington’s concern is not only ideological but also geopolitical. Brazil’s pursuit of strategic autonomy, strengthening BRICS cooperation, expanding relations with China, and defending a multipolar international order represents a different vision from that of Latin America closely aligned with Washington.
For many observers in the region, this resembles a renewed version of the Monroe Doctrine: the traditional idea that Latin America belongs to a privileged U.S. sphere of influence. In the twenty-first century, however, the contest is not expressed only through military intervention or direct political pressure. It appears through trade disputes, diplomatic leverage, sanctions, information battles, technology, and alliances with domestic political forces.
Political Science speaks
The Brazilian election has therefore become much larger than a domestic contest between political rivals. It has become a symbolic struggle between two models: one based on alignment with Washington (characterised by right- and far-right-wing governments) and another based on greater autonomy in foreign policy (represented by centre-left and left-wing governments – in extinction in the region).
Historically, Latin American politics has often followed this pattern. Conservative and far-right governments have generally maintained closer strategic relations with the United States, being more submissive to Washington’s plan, while progressive and nationalist governments have frequently sought greater independence, regional integration, and development strategies less dependent on and less aligned with Washington.
This does not mean that every right-wing government is automatically subordinate to U.S. interests, nor that every left-wing government rejects cooperation with the United States. But the historical divide over autonomy versus alignment remains a powerful feature of politics in Latin America.
Ideology speaks too
Argentina’s President Javier Milei has become one of the most visible actors in this new ideological landscape. His diplomatic, embarrassing criticism of Lula while in Brazil, his attacks on the Brazilian Supreme Court that condemned Bolsonaro for leading an attempt at a coup d’état, and his participation in events supporting Bolsonaro’s son’s presidential campaign have been interpreted in Brasília as part of a wider regional realignment – being Milei Trump’s special envoy.
Critics argue that Milei’s foreign policy prioritises ideological loyalty to Washington over Argentina’s own economic and strategic interests. Milei’s economic shock initially pushed more than half of Argentines below the poverty line, while extreme poverty reached 18.1%. Although both indicators have later fallen, the social cost of the adjustment was immediate and severe.
Milei’s supporters see his approach differently, presenting him as a leader defending Western values and confronting what they consider left-wing governments in the region. But the controversy illustrates a deeper question: whether Latin American countries are developing their own agendas or becoming instruments in a new great-power competition.
The irony is that the language of sovereignty has become central to both sides. Brazil’s government argues that defending democracy means protecting institutions and guaranteeing their independent functioning from pressure or interference.
Brazil’s election will determine not only the direction of Latin America’s largest economy but also whether the region moves toward renewed dependence on Washington or toward a more autonomous geopolitical identity.
For Lula, the message is clear: Brazil cannot accept a return to a hemisphere where external powers decide the political future of Latin American nations. For Washington, the argument is equally clear: Brazil’s choices affect U.S. strategic interests.
The confrontation between these two visions has placed Brazil once again at the centre of a historic question that has shaped Latin America for two centuries: sovereignty or dependency.
My main takeaway is also clear: Brazil became the new battlefield for Latin America’s political future. The present Brazilian government’s resistance to Washington’s diktat should be placed as a model for many countries and regions.
Ricardo Martins – Doctor of Sociology, specialist in European and international politics as well as geopolitics
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
