Tariff hike: US builds false narrative around big tech, experts say
Court rulings and changes in Brazilian legislation regarding the operations of big tech companies were among the arguments used by the US to impose a 25 percent tariff on Brazilian products. The surcharge takes effect this Wednesday (Jul. 22).
However, according to researchers interviewed by Agência Brasil, the US has distorted facts and used the issue as a pretext to punish Brazil. The experts argue that foreign tech giants cannot view the country as a “lawless land” and must comply with national regulations.
Contrary to what the US government claims, Brazilian law does not pose a threat to freedom of expression. This is a distorted narrative, as pointed out by Professor Paulo Rená, a researcher at the Reference Institute for Internet and Society (Iris).
“What actually harms freedom of expression is the lack of rules, as it allows hate speech to target minorities and misinformation to influence public opinion,” Professor Rená stated.
Sociologist Sérgio Amadeu, a professor at the Federal University of ABC, in São Paulo state, and a researcher on digital sovereignty, describes the US government’s decision as “high-handed.”
The justifications for the steep tariff hike can be found in a document by the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR). The text cites legal action against big tech companies and provisions of Brazil’s Civil Rights Framework for the Internet that allegedly tighten regulations on digital platforms.
The US document claims that secret orders from Brazilian courts and the severe penalties for noncompliance are unreasonable, as they require US social media companies to remove political content and suspend the accounts of US residents.
Accountability
In Europe, there are a number of safeguards that do not yet exist in Brazil, as Professor Amadeu points out. “What happens in Europe, above all, is that big tech companies there are held accountable to society.”
He notes that the Trump administration is maneuvering to ensure that Brazil remains a territory where big tech corporations can extract data and wealth without being held accountable to our society.
“This is absurd. One of the consequences is that big tech companies practice heavy censorship here in Brazil because they control algorithms that are invisible.”
Government
Professor Amadeu believes that the role of the government is to ensure that crime does not proliferate online. “We need legislation that ensures big tech companies and digital platforms comply with democratic rules,” he argued.
In his view, Brazil is facing a scenario of “techno-fascism,” in which corporations have abandoned the facade of neutrality to openly align themselves with the US government’s agenda. “These companies have embraced Trump’s policy to turn Brazil into a free-for-all for the extraction of data and wealth without accountability.”
No surprise
Humberto Ribeiro, director of Sleeping Giants Brasil, points out that, following Donald Trump’s election, some corporations changed their policies and ended fact-checking partnerships with independent agencies. “Big tech companies have become tools of Washington’s geopolitical strategy,” he said.
To Ribeiro’s judgment, it comes as no surprise that the US argues that Brazil’s progress in regulating these corporations is grounds for imposing hefty tariffs.
“Last year, when the tariffs were first announced against Brazil, one of the justifications was that the country was moving forward with initiatives to regulate digital platforms.”
Alexandre Gonzalez, a researcher at the Institute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA) and a representative of Diracom (an organization that fights inequality in the media and on the internet), sees Trump’s actions as a continuation of the tone adopted by him in 2025, with the aim of shielding corporate interests under the false narrative of protecting competition.
Behind the official rhetoric, Gonzalez notes that the United States’ true concern lies in the global technology race against China, particularly in the field of artificial intelligence. Corporations in this field are believed to form the backbone of this US technological vanguard.
The Brazil effect
Humberto Ribeiro argues that Brazil has become key to the US in its efforts to prevent other Latin American nations from following the same path of attempting to regulate the industry.
“One goal, in fact, would be to show all of Latin America the consequences of doing what Brazil is doing,” he pointed out.
Report
This year, Sleeping Giants was one of the activist organizations responsible for publishing a report on big tech companies in Brazil to assess the harm these companies have caused to society. The report identified, for instance, the promotion of harmful and violent behavior, child sexual exploitation, self-harm, and incitement to suicide.
A second category of harm involves the adoption of censorship and manipulation tactics. “They are the true censors. These platforms take down news outlets, channels related to social movements, or marginalized social groups at their own discretion.”
He argues that regulation is, in fact, a tool for protecting freedom of expression. “Without regulation of these companies’ services, they will continue to suppress and remove content – including from news outlets – without any rules requiring them to be held accountable for the decisions they’ve made.”
Humberto Ribeiro believes that Brazil initially took a protective approach toward tech giants. With the Supreme Court’s ruling on Article 19 of the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet, it was established that content removal would henceforth follow the European model, based on user complaints.
“It’s not accurate to say that the Brazilian approach is harsh. It guarantees users’ safety. It’s not an approach that prevents platforms from operating, for example. In my view, it could be made even stricter.”
The attorney notes that two bills currently under consideration in Congress are particularly relevant to digital sovereignty. One is PL 2338, already approved by the Senate, which addresses the use of artificial intelligence in Brazil. The other is PL 4675, on the regulation of digital markets. In his view, this bill could impact the information technology market in Brazil. “It breaks up the monopolistic practices that companies have always used to gain and secure their market power.”
Legislation
According to Professor Rená, intense lobbying by big tech companies has served to block progress in Brazil’s National Congress, with the Fake News Bill being the prime example of this obstruction. This legislative inaction has required a response from the other branches of government to ensure digital sovereignty.
“Nothing in these regulations addresses restrictions on the content of publications or censorship. What is required is a proactive and transparent role on the part of platforms in enforcing their own terms of use and protecting vulnerable groups, especially children and adolescents.”
Alexandre Gonzalez, a researcher in political science and international relations, believes that the premise that there is some kind of persecution of US companies operating in Brazil is unfounded. “The argument about defending freedom of expression is a pretext.”
In Gonzalez’s opinion, the claim that Brazil is taking a tougher stance toward big tech is false. In his view, debating the establishment of rules is a global trend in discussion and policy-making.
Social Construction
Journalist Júlia Lanz, a researcher at the collective Intervozes and the Coalition for Rights on the Internet, argues that, just as there are regulations for advertising in Brazil, regulations for digital platforms are also necessary.
“This has nothing to do with the narrative they’re trying to push about censorship. Our Civil Rights Framework was a major achievement of society pressuring Congress. And it was a major victory for rights.”
Attorney Camila Camargo, a specialist in digital law in Paraná state, notes that Decrees 12,975 and 12,976, which took effect this week, require platforms to remove and work to prevent content deemed criminal.
“Brazil has every right to determine which rules it should adopt. Every company must take responsibility. Anyone offering a service or product has a series of responsibilities.”
Sovereignty
Professor Paulo Rená argues that Brazil should leverage its market size and sovereignty to resist the pressure.
“The Brazilian government’s firm stance is, in fact, what guarantees and promotes true freedom of expression and democracy in the country.”
Professor Amadeu, in turn, says that the democratic path requires upholding the Constitution, imposing fair taxation on billion-dollar transactions, and ensuring that foreign corporations subject their algorithms to Brazilian democracy.
