SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
democracy
Calling Bolsonaro Trial a 'Witch Hunt,' Trump Threatens Brazil With 50% Tariffs
"The reason why this is happening, not so subtly alluded to by Trump, is because Brazil actually held its right-wing coup leader accountable," said one critic.
Jul 09, 2025
After days of publicly railing against Brazil for the trial of its former leader, Jair Bolsonaro, U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday threatened the South American country with a 50% tariff "on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States."
Far-right Bolsonaro, sometimes called the "Trump of the Tropics," lost Brazil's 2022 presidential election to leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the recipient of the Wednesday letter that the U.S. president posted on his Truth Social network.
Bolsonaro is now facing a trial for alleged crimes, including an attempted coup d'état, following his reelection loss. The Brazilian's effort to cling to power was called "straight from Donald Trump's playbook," with critics worldwide pointing to the U.S. leader inciting the January 6, 2021 insurrection after his own electoral loss the previous November.
"This is a disgrace, just old-fashioned imperialism. A 50% tariff because Brazil's legal system has defended democracy."
In Truth Social posts on Monday and Tuesday, Trump blasted the trial as a "WITCH HUNT" and an "attack on a Political Opponent" while praising Bolsonaro as a "strong Leader, who truly loved his Country" and a "very tough negotiator on TRADE."
Echoing those posts, Trump wrote to Lula: "The way Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his Term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace. This Trial should not be taking place. It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!"
"Due in part to Brazil's insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans (as lately illustrated by the Brazilian Supreme Court, which has issued hundreds of SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms, threatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines and Eviction from the Brazilian Social Media market), starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a Tariff of 50%," Trump continued.
Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the Brazilian Supreme Court justice overseeing Bolsonaro's case, was also involved in a legal battle that temporarily shut down the social media platform X in Brazil. The network, formerly known as Twitter, is owned by estranged Trump ally Elon Musk, the richest man on Earth. The weekslong suspension of X last year stemmed from the company's refusal to comply with an order to deactivate dozens of accounts accused of spreading disinformation.
Both Trump and Elon have used their power and platforms to go after Brazil. When Musk did it last year I spoke with some Brazilian media experts and journalists who explained that Brazil actually takes online disinformation and threats to their democracy seriously www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcn...
[image or embed]
— Kat Tenbarge (@kattenbarge.bsky.social) July 9, 2025 at 5:53 PM
Trump claimed in his letter to Lula that "these Tariffs are necessary to correct the many years of Brazil's Tariff, and Non-Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers, causing these unsustainable Trade Deficits against the United States. However, The Guardian noted, "the U.S. runs a trade surplus with Brazil, thanks in part to a free-trade agreement expanded in 2020, during Trump's first term."
The newspaper pointed to data on Brazil from the website of United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer:
U.S. total goods trade with Brazil were an estimated $92 billion in 2024. U.S. goods exports to Brazil in 2024 were $49.7 billion, up 11.3% ($5.0 billion) from 2023. U.S. goods imports from Brazil in 2024 totaled $42.3 billion, up 8.3% ($3.2 billion) from 2023. The U.S. goods trade surplus with Brazil was $7.4 billion in 2024, a 31.9% increase ($1.8 billion) over 2023.
Various journalists and other critics also highlighted the surplus. Michael Reid, a writer and visiting professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science, said on social media: "This is a disgrace, just old-fashioned imperialism. A 50% tariff because Brazil's legal system has defended democracy. And by the way, the U.S. has a trade surplus with Brazil."
Politico reported that "the overtly political tone of the letter is a break with more than a dozen other letters Trump has sent to foreign governments this week, threatening to impose new tariff rates on their exports to the U.S. beginning August 1."
While Trump's letter to Brazil has overtly political motivations, he also said during a Tuesday Cabinet meeting that he would target the entire BRICS economic group of emerging market nations, which began with Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and now also includes Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates.
"If they're a member of BRICS, they are going to have to pay a 10% tariff, just for that one thing—and they won't be a member long," Trump said, according to CNN. "BRICS was set up to hurt us, BRICS was set up to degenerate our dollar and take our dollar, take it off as the standard."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Profiles in Cowardice' Award Seeks to Identify Leaders Enabling Rise of Fascist Trump
The nominees "took an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,'" said retired Maj. Gen. Dennis Laich. "Through their actions, or inaction, they are violating that oath."
Jul 09, 2025
A network of former intelligence, military, and national security officials on Tuesday launched the Profiles in Cowardice Award and urged the public to vote for nominees who are "silent in the face of the country's descent into fascism," a march led by U.S. President Donald Trump.
"We are in a constitutional crisis," says the Eisenhower Media Network's (EMN) website for the award. "Trump is amassing power in the executive branch, ignoring Congress and the courts. Meanwhile, leaders who have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution are sitting on their hands."
The new honor is the inverse of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award, created by the late president's family "to recognize and celebrate the quality of political courage that he admired most." This year's recipient is Trump's former vice president, Mike Pence, "for putting his life and career on the line to ensure the constitutional transfer of presidential power on January 6, 2021," when Trump incited an insurrection and his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.
"We, the American people, are here to remind them of who they serve, and that it's time to do their constitutional duty by standing up to this administration and its authoritarian bent."
Nominees for the inaugural Profiles in Cowardice Award are former President George W. Bush, former Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), retired Gens. David Petraeus and Mark Milley, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"The 'Profiles in Cowardice' Award was created to call out those weak souls who are failing to engage in efforts to keep our country from sleepwalking into fascism," said EMN's director, retired Maj. Gen. (ret.) Dennis Laich, in a statement.
"These leaders, both past and present, took an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,'" he noted. "Through their actions, or inaction, they are violating that oath. We, the American people, are here to remind them of who they serve, and that it's time to do their constitutional duty by standing up to this administration and its authoritarian bent."
The public can vote at ProfilesInCowardice.org until August 1, after which the award will be presented to the winner "at the most inconvenient time possible," according to the website.
The site lays out why people were nominated as "cowards." For example, "Bush has a long and storied history of cowardice" and "is solidifying his legacy" by retreating rather than serving as a leader in the Republican Party and standing up to Trump.
In Congress, "Mace is a one-woman culture war content machine—exactly how the military-industrial complex and mainstream media like it," the site continues. Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, "has chosen to push through Trump's agenda of unfettered militarism and confirm unqualified MAGA loyalists like Pete Hegseth," the defense secretary. Republicans on that committee also "rubber-stamped Pete Hegseth to cater to Trump and his blindly loyal MAGA cronies."
Among former military leaders, the site says, "Milley attempted to make a principled stand after the January 6th insurrection—but cowardice won out in the end," and Petraeus said at a conference that "the world was in for 'exciting times' under Trump."
"The Joint Chiefs of Staff are tasked with defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic," the site notes. "But as reckless U.S. military actions push the world closer to nuclear catastrophe, they've chosen silence over service. No resignations. No public warnings."
As for Blinken, who served under former President Joe Biden, "he ignored a flood of real-time reports detailing Israeli human rights violations—and now we know his public claims of 'working overtime' on cease-fires were outright lies," the site adds. "With American diplomacy in free fall, Blinken chose complicity and cover stories over truth and action."
Christian Sorenson, EMN's associate director, said that "it takes courage to do the right thing... It takes even more courage to do the right thing when the system itself fosters militarism and war profiteering."
"Targeting 'leaders' in the nation's capital, Profiles in Cowardice highlights the craven and the pushovers, as well as those who eagerly abet authoritarianism and nonstop war for personal and professional gain," Sorenson added. "Virtue and public service will arrive in D.C. one way or another. Profiles in Cowardice is part of that broader effort."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Sad (Very Familiar) New York Times and Its Mamdani Hit Piece
Let's consider everything that was wrong with this article targeting the recent winner of the Democratic primary in the New York City mayoral race. It’s a long list.
Jul 08, 2025
The sad fact is that there is nothing terribly out of character about the New York Times’s decision to publish a deceptive hit piece about New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, based on hacked data supplied by a noted eugenicist to whom they granted anonymity.
The newsroom will go to extreme lengths to achieve its primary missions — and one of them, most assuredly, is to take cheap shots at the left.
You can see it almost daily – just this past week alone in a condescending article about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s brave defense of democracy, and a celebratory story about Trump’s achievements that likened dissenting views to “asterisks” on his legacy.
Under what other circumstance could a story that breaks so many of the Times’s own rules have won the approval of senior editors?
And you can trace it back to the very top: to editor Joe Kahn and his boss, publisher A.G. Sulzberger. As I’ve exhaustively chronicled in my coverage of the New York Times, the newsroom is constantly under pressure from its leaders to prove that it is not taking sides in politics — or democracy, for that matter. And because printing the truth is seen as punching right, that requires expending a lot of effort to punch left. Punching left becomes the holy grail.
I mean think about it. Under what other circumstance could a story that breaks so many of the Times’s own rules have won the approval of senior editors?
Why else would the Times, which notoriously refuses to respond to critics, have issued a ten-tweet defense of its actions? Why else would Kahn have praised the story in Monday’s morning meeting?
Consider everything that was wrong with the article. It’s a long list.
- You don’t print articles based on hacked data unless they are truly newsworthy. The fact that Mamdani, whose childhood was spent in Africa, checked several boxes including one for “African American” on a failed college application when he was 17 is not newsworthy. Its only value is to his political opponents, to employ as a scurrilous attack.
- You identify the source of the hack as fully as possible, so the readers can judge their motives. You don’t cover up the source’s identity and motives, like the Times did – you expose them. The source, as quickly became clear, was a noted eugenicist named Jordan Lasker.
- You don’t use the format of an attack story unless there’s a legitimate grievance. (First paragraph: Mamdani says X. Second paragraph starts with the word “But.”)
- You don’t hide behind a headline that says the disclosure you just made “raises scrutiny“. It’s either legitimate news or it’s not. (And it isn’t.)
- You don’t bury key information. Here, that Mamdani wrote in “Ugandan” as a way of explicating his checked box. (He was born there.)
- You don’t engage in racial policing. That is socially harmful and highly unseemly, especially coming from such a white-dominated institution.
- You don’t publish political stories whose lead byline is a free-lance writer who is a culture warrior. Benjamin Ryan is well known online as a critic of trans healthcare and trans reporters.
- You don’t rush to print in order to “scoop” a right-wing culture warrior. Semafor reported that Times editors hurried to greenlight the article because they had heard Rufo was also pursuing the story. That should actually have made them hesitate to print, rather than hurry.
There’s more about the Mamdani piece in this excellent article by Liam Scott in the Columbia Journalism Review.
Parker Molloy, in her newsletter, points out:
When Times columnist Jamelle Bouie had the temerity to post “i think you should tell readers if your source is a nazi,” he was apparently forced to delete it for violating the paper’s social media guidelines. Think about that for a moment. The Times will protect the anonymity of a white supremacist, but will silence their own Black columnist for accurately identifying him.
And Guardian media columnist Margaret Sullivan , who previously worked as the Times' public editor, concludes that “this made-up scandal” — combined with a nasty pre-election editorial – makes the Times look “like it’s on a crusade against Mamdani.”
The Times did its own self-serving follow-up article here, reporting that its disclosure had “provoked sharply different reactions.”
It also published — in what the New Republic’s Jason Linkins called an attempt to “reverse-engineer a pretext for their Mamdani piece” — a query asking readers what they think of racial categories.
The Need for a Public Editor
When a Times article sets off an understandable explosion of media criticism, like this article did, the response would ideally come from a public editor, or ombud, whose job is to explain what happened and independently assess whether the Times was at fault or not. There would ideally be some learning.
Parts of the Times operation remain brilliant, most notably its investigative journalism and Cooking. But its coverage of anything remotely political is poisoned by its obsession to prove its neutrality by taking cheap shots at the left.
Sadly, The Times eliminated the position of public editor eight years ago. The publisher at the time said “our followers on social media and our readers across the Internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be.”
So on Saturday, the response came from the Times’s hackish “assistant managing editor for standards and trust” Patrick Healy. To say that he does not inspire trust is an understatement.
Healy, who until May was the deputy opinions editor, drove the Times’s excellent columnist Paul Krugman to quit his job. Prior to that, he led a series of right-leaning citizens panels.
He was the newsroom’s politics editor during the 2020 presidential election, and the unapologetic leader of the paper’s “but her emails” coverage.
In short, he seems to revel in trolling the libs.
In his tweets, Healy focused on the article’s “factual accuracy” and he recognized concerns about how the source was identified. But he refused to engage with the concerns that the article was not newsworthy or that its sourcing was repugnant.
“The ultimate source was Columbia admissions data and Mr. Mamdani, who confirmed our reporting,” Healy wrote defensively.
That he is a rising star at the Times – indeed, said to be among the possible successors to Kahn – tells you everything you need to know about what’s wrong there.
Parts of the Times operation remain brilliant, most notably its investigative journalism and Cooking.
But its coverage of anything remotely political is poisoned by its obsession to prove its neutrality by taking cheap shots at the left, no matter the cost to its obligation to accuracy and fairness.
This piece first appeared on Froomkin's website, Press Watch, and appears at Common Dreams with permission.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular