Brazilian researchers and legal experts have pushed back against U.S. claims that the country's digital regulations threaten free speech, arguing that Washington is distorting the issue to justify a 25% tariff on Brazilian goods that took effect this Wednesday.
The U.S. Tariff Representative's office (USTR) cited Brazil's judicial actions against big tech companies and provisions of the country's Civil Rights Framework for the Internet as evidence of what it called a "hardening" of legislation against digital platforms. The USTR document specifically questioned "secret orders from Brazilian courts" and "severe penalties for non-compliance" that require American social media companies to remove political content and suspend profiles of U.S. residents.
Paulo Rená, a researcher at the Institute for Reference on Internet and Society (Iris), rejected the U.S. narrative, stating that "the lack of rules is what harms freedom of expression by allowing hate speech to attack minorities and disinformation to affect the formation of public opinion." He emphasized that Brazilian legislation does not promote censorship but rather seeks to ensure platforms take a proactive and transparent role in enforcing their own terms of service and protecting vulnerable groups, particularly children and adolescents.
Sociologist Sérgio Amadeu, a professor at the Federal University of ABC and researcher on digital sovereignty, described the U.S. decision as "truculent." He noted that in Europe, big tech companies are required to answer to society, whereas the Trump administration is maneuvering to ensure Brazil remains a territory where these corporations can extract data and wealth without accountability. "This is absurd," Amadeu said. "One of the consequences is that big techs practice very heavy censorship here in Brazil because they control invisible algorithms."
Humberto Ribeiro, director of Sleeping Giants Brasil, argued that Brazil has become strategically important for the United States in its effort to prevent other Latin American countries from following the same regulatory path. "One objective, in fact, would be to demonstrate to all Latin American countries what the consequences are of doing what Brazil is doing," he said. Ribeiro also pointed out that with Trump's election, some companies have altered their guidelines and ended fact-checking partnerships with independent agencies, converting big techs into "tools of Washington's geopolitical strategy."
Alexandre Gonzalez, a researcher at the Institute of Applied Economic Research (Ipea), identified the true U.S. concern as being anchored in the global technological race against China, particularly in the field of artificial intelligence. He called the free speech argument "a pretext" and dismissed the notion of Brazilian persecution of U.S. companies as unfounded. "Debating the establishment of rules is a global trend," Gonzalez said.
The Brazilian experts also noted that two bills currently before Congress have particular relevance for digital sovereignty: PL 2338, already approved by the Senate, which addresses the use of artificial intelligence in Brazil, and PL 4675, which deals with the regulation of digital markets. According to Ribeiro, the latter could break monopolistic practices used by companies to secure market power.
Journalist Júlia Lanz, a researcher at Intervozes and the Direitos na Rede Coalition, stressed that just as there is regulation for advertising in Brazil, regulation of digital platforms is equally necessary. "It has nothing to do with the censorship narrative they try to attach," she said. "Our Civil Rights Framework was a great construction by civil society with pressure on Congress. And it was a great achievement for rights."
The researchers collectively defended Brazil's right to define its own rules, with Rená arguing that "Brazil's firm stance is, in fact, what guarantees and promotes true freedom of expression and democracy in the country."
