Amazon worker details pattern of sexual harassment, management retaliation and physical abuse

Samuel Davidson

Workers unload pallets with tote from truck trailers at Amazon OXR1 fulfillment center in Oxnard, California, on Wednesday, August 21, 2024. [AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes]

A worker at an Amazon fulfillment center in Ohio recently spoke with the World Socialist Web Site to detail a pattern of sexual harassment, management retaliation, and physical abuse leading to injury, a story that has become all too familiar for Amazon workers.

We are referring to her as Susan instead of using her real name. We are also leaving out certain details specific to her case in order to protect her from further retaliation by management.

Susan's story of harassment, and retaliation on the part of Amazon management when she reported this harassment, is similar to reports filed by workers at other fulfillment centers. Susan's story also exposes the failure of various government agencies that were established ostensibly to protect workers from harassment and retaliation, including the courts.

Susan's story began almost four years ago when she took a job at an Amazon warehouse to provide for herself and her family. Like other fulfillment centers, the one she worked at in Ohio was large and fast-paced, employing hundreds of workers around the clock to process hundreds of thousands of items each day and load them onto trucks for delivery to customers or for shipment to other distribution centers.

The work is hard and fast, with workers having to lift, reach, bend, and twist hundreds of packages each hour—some weighing as much as 100 pounds. It was in this demanding environment that Susan's ordeal began.

Trouble started just two months after Susan began working, when an assistant manager began making unwelcome sexual advances, including harassing statements and inappropriate touching.

“Two months after starting, I began getting harassed by an assistant manager. Sexually harassed, pinched my shoulder. I filed multiple complaints. Nothing ever happened. They have policies and rules. When I filed a complaint, that assistant manager (I don't know how) obtained copies of my statement. I went to HR and got mad, asking ‘Why aren't you investigating?’ Apparently, he has connections to HR. He went around making me look bad.”

Fellow workers told Susan that the assistant manager was trying to collect letters from them against her as retaliation for her complaints.

“He knew every time I went to HR,” said Susan. “This guy was stalking me everywhere.”

Her situation worsened as other managers joined in the retaliation. “Another manager came, and one day she made a comment about Hispanics. I went to HR and asked if this is right. After that, she used her power to make my life miserable every day.”

The female manager began targeting Susan with punitive work assignments. “She used to put me on work in heavy areas by myself when in my work area you are supposed to have more employees. Some of my co-workers saw the heavyweight volume of work I was getting and they tried to help me, but the management told them to stay away from my area or they would be in trouble.”

When Susan raised concerns about the physical demands, management's response was dismissive. At “Amazon, you have to bend, lift, twist, ” was the reply she got Susan explained. “They said just quit if you can't do it.”

The abuse escalated beyond work assignments. “Another time I was working in an area where a chemical detergent broke and started leaking around the belt that goes around. It got on me from head down. I was under the area doing my job, my eyes started hurting and I ran to the bathroom to wash my face.

“I went to my manager and asked if I could go home to clean up and she said no ‘You can't go home or you’ll be terminated if you leave without permission.’”

Despite the mounting harassment, Susan continued to go to HR to seek an end to the victimization. “I made a complaint for retaliation. An investigation was opened and they found a violation. But the manager was in control of every manager on the floor. She wanted to make sure they all did what she wanted.”

The female manager directed the other supervisors to intensify Susan's mistreatment. Susan said the manager told the other managers to “make her life miserable.”

And they did. “For two years, my life was miserable. Bullying, sexual harassment,” Susan recounted.

The harassment reached a terrifying climax in October 2023, when the original assistant manager, who had sexually harassed Susan, made a direct threat against her life. “Then in October 2023, the assistant manager who used to sexually harass me, said ‘I would shoot you but not kill you.’

“I freaked out, I messaged one of the big bosses. He refused to come to me. I was shaking and crying and afraid and said I have to get out of here.

“One of the guards saw me crying and asked me if I was ok and I said, ‘I have to get out of here’ and I walked out. I messaged the HR manager on the same day. An investigation was opened and a violation was found, as before.”

Yet nothing substantial occurred even after the death threat. “They suspended someone for a week, but that manager is still there as are the others involved,” Susan said.

The impact of the work and the stress of threats and harassment was taking a severe toll on Susan's health. “My body was shutting down on me. I was getting sick, heart issues, and anxieties. They denied me workers' comp. What HR did, ignore every single time I came asking for help and never investigated when I asked.”

The situation came to a head when Susan's supervisors cornered her at work. “They cornered me and I ran out and went to the ER. They said I had extreme stress. I took off all of November 2023.”

Susan's injuries from the prolonged harassment and demanding physical work were extensive. She was placed on anxiety medications for stress-related conditions. Her shoulder and neck were hurt and she was placed on physical therapy. She lost strength in her left arm. Damage to her left ear canal gives her dizziness.

Susan's experience with workplace injuries reflects a broader pattern at Amazon facilities. Injuries at Amazon warehouses are common, as the pace of work, the heavy lifting, bending and twisting leads to thousands of injuries each year. Among the most common health and safety problems are musculoskeletal injuries, with workers frequently reporting strains and sprains, especially in the back and shoulders, due to repetitive lifting, bending, and twisting. OSHA investigations have confirmed high rates of these injuries at multiple facilities.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Amazon for unsafe conditions at several warehouses, but this has led to very few fines and what fines there are, Amazon considers just the cost of doing business.

Amazon's injury statistics tell the story of a dangerous workplace. In 2019, Amazon's injury rate rose to 8.7 per 100 full-time workers, up from under 6 in 2016. In 2020, it dropped to 6.7 per 100 full-time workers, possibly due to pandemic-related operational changes. In 2023, it stood at 6.3 per 100 full-time workers.

Amazon's injury rates remain among the highest in the warehousing sector. Amazon's injury rate remained 1.5 times higher than TJX (T.J. Maxx, Marshalls) and nearly 3 times higher than Walmart. Many workers feel the real injury rate is still higher and that many workers don't report injuries for fear of retaliation, including termination.

Heat-related injuries and illness are another common problem at Amazon warehouses and fulfillment centers, although this was not part of Susan's particular experience. Many Amazon facilities, particularly older ones or those in hot regions, have inadequate ventilation or air conditioning. Workers have reported extreme indoor temperatures, sometimes exceeding 100° Fahrenheit , especially in places like San Bernardino, California. There have been multiple reports of heat-related illnesses, including dehydration and heat stroke. In one high-profile case, a worker at a New Jersey warehouse died during a heat wave.

While Susan was off work recovering, her ordeal continued. She felt she was being followed in an effort to prove she wasn't really injured. She also received threatening text messages, emails and voicemail messages. She took these to the police but they claimed they were never able to find out who sent them.

When Susan returned to work, the harassment continued unabated. She submitted Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) paperwork, signed by her doctor and submitted to Amazon that limited the lifting she could do.

But even her doctor's orders were ignored. “When I was on the floor for a half day,” Susan explained, “I got a phone call, which I didn't answer on the floor. At lunchtime, the voicemail said I had to leave the floor because the accommodation was being revoked.”

“I called the number during my lunchtime and they said it was denied because the senior operations manager denied it.”

Susan pointed out that there are many elderly workers and others with disabilities who can't get accommodations from Amazon. She says they fear filing for FMLA because they would get harassed and ultimately lose their jobs.

Susan's experience with harassment and retaliation is not unique. Harassment, and retaliation against employees who report harassment, is frequent at Amazon's workplaces. Some widely publicized cases include a group of African American workers at an Amazon facility in Joliet, Illinois, who were being racially attacked and when they complained and requested that additional security be added to their work site, they were told they could go home. Other cases include workers at New York City facilities who sought to organize into a union and were themselves retaliated against for seeking to organize.

Like many workers, Susan went to the various government bodies who are charged with protecting workers against workplace abuse, only to discover that these agencies offer little meaningful help.

Susan went to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to no avail. “What aggravated me was, what is EEOC even for? They just give you a ‘right to sue’ letter.”

Susan went to the Ohio government offices and got the same results. Susan tried to sue in court, but the attorney she hired stopped answering her calls after initially taking her case.

As a result of losing income, Susan has been forced to move in with a friend.

Despite everything she has endured, Susan maintains her determination to speak out about the conditions at Amazon and the broader failures of the systems that are supposed to protect workers.

“I feel bad for what's going on around the world; workplaces like Amazon facilities can be very toxic and stressful because of the lack of a management system. Rules, Policies and Guidelines should be reviewed and put in place for the safety of employees.

She spoke about the April 9, 2025 death of Leony Salcedos-Chevalier, 34, who was fatally struck by a delivery box truck backing up in a loading dock at the JFK8 Amazon fulfillment center in Staten Island, New York.

“The Salcedo death was a bad situation that could've been prevented if there was more safety involved. Amazon does have a safety department. But I only see them seated all the time. This department never goes around to assure the safety of Amazon employees.

“So absolutely this situation shouldn't happen and the death of the employee shouldn't be ignored.”

Susan wanted to emphasize that it was necessary for Amazon workers to unite together and fight back.

“Employees have the right to be safe and healthy in every workplace. They should be treated equally and respectfully.

“Favoritism, discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, bullying, injuries of any type and any other harmful workplace should be evaluated and they should provide better assistance and support to those needed; it should never be ignored.

“What happened to me, it has happened to other people.

“I call and seek justice for what I went through. Please listen.”

Federal jury rejects most serious charges against rapper and music industry mogul Sean Combs

Kevin Reed

The federal criminal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, the American rap artist and music industry executive, ended July 2, in US District Court in Lower Manhattan, New York City.

After three days of jury deliberations, Combs was found not guilty of the most serious charges—racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion—but convicted on two lesser counts of transportation to engage in prostitution.

Sean Combs [Photo by Nikeush / CC BY 4.0]

The outcome of the two-month trial is widely seen as a humiliating disaster for federal prosecutors who invested significant resources and attracted public attention for what they billed as a landmark case against “celebrity abuse and exploitation.”

Moreover, it is a slap in the face of the media, with its months of hysteria about lotions, bodily fluids and “freak offs,” as well as the #MeToo witch-hunt. The jury seems to have been able to distinguish the facts from the sensationalism, consensual behavior and irresponsibility from systematic criminality.

It is no defense of Combs to point out the hypocrisy of the entire business. Murder tens of thousands of women and children, and the US establishment will roll out the red carpet. Hire two prostitutes for a sex party, and there are six months of screaming headlines and a full-blown federal prosecution. The trial was grotesquely ugly, and a deliberate distraction.

Noteworthy as well is the fact that the facts about a truly criminal enterprise, the late Jeffrey Epstein and his intimate connections to leading politicians from both parties and a wide swath of ruling class America, were being suppressed even as Combs faced public pillorying as Satan himself.

The New York jury rejected the prosecutions allegations that Combs was guilty of orchestrating a criminal enterprise for years that exploited by force women and men for sexual purposes. Although transportation to engage in prostitution is a serious federal offense, the guilty verdict on this charge alone shows that the jury considered the bulk of the prosecution’s case against him as unproven.

Instead of Combs serving the sentence sought by US Attorneys Maurene Comey and Damian Williams of 15 years to life, some legal experts are suggesting that Combs could be sentenced to “time served” and released. If not, his attorneys are expected to argue for a sentence much lighter than the maximum of ten years per charge, given his lack of prior convictions and the nonviolent nature of the offenses. Combs’ sentencing hearing has been set for October 3, 2025.

Weeks of testimony was taken during the trial that included lurid details of Combs’ sex parties—the alleged “freak offs”—where escorts, drugs and emotional coercion were allegedly intermingled.

The indictment against Combs was unsealed in September 2024 when he was charged with five felonies. The case was built on a series of accusations and testimony from former associates, ex-girlfriends and employees, including high-profile figures such as Cassie Ventura, Combs’ former partner, and another woman who testified simply as “Jane.”

Prosecutors alleged that Combs was the ringleader of an “enterprise” that abused and threatened women into prolonged, drug-fueled orgies with male prostitutes and that he used threats and violence to silence victims and witnesses.

Combs, 55, pleaded not guilty to all charges. He was denied bail by a magistrate and a judge in two pretrial appearances when the courts determined Combs posed a danger to victims and witnesses, and there was a risk he could obstruct justice or intimidate witnesses.

Prosecutors argued that Combs had the resources—his estimated personal wealth is $300 million—and influence to potentially tamper with witnesses, even through coded messages or associates, and that no bail conditions could adequately ensure the safety of the community or prevent interference with the legal process.

Combs’ defense team, led by attorneys Marc Agnifilo and Teny Geragos, argued that the government’s case was built on unreliable witnesses, consensual adult relationships and a fundamental misunderstanding of Combs’ “swinger lifestyle.”

They contended that while Combs’ relationships may have involved domestic violence or unconventional arrangements, none of the conduct rose to the level of criminal sex trafficking or racketeering.

Geragos told reporters outside the courthouse after the verdict:

I have consistently stated since the outset of this case that Sean Combs has not engaged in any sexual assault. I’ve reiterated this for several months. We have maintained this position with every lawsuit that emerged, and it has been validated. The media misrepresented Sean Combs every single day for almost two years. He has not sexually assaulted anyone, and he certainly has not participated in sex trafficking, as the jury confirmed today.

The jury began deliberations on June 30, 2025. After twelve hours, they announced verdicts on four of the five charges but initially could not reach a consensus on the racketeering conspiracy count. On July 2, after further deliberations, the jury found Combs guilty of transportation for the purposes of prostitution involving Ventura and “Jane.”

Combs’ lawyers immediately requested his release from custody, arguing that this was his first conviction and that he should be allowed to return to his Miami home pending sentencing. Prosecutors, however, strongly opposed the request, citing Combs’ “propensity for violence” and arguing that he posed a flight risk.

Judge Arun Subramanian ultimately denied bail, ordering Combs to remain in custody until his sentencing. The judge noted that Combs had already served nearly 10 months in jail, which would be credited toward his sentence.

Legal analysts have pointed to several factors that likely contributed to the acquittals on the more serious charges. The prosecution’s reliance on the testimony of former associates and ex-partners—many of whom had previously settled civil claims or had credibility issues—may well have undermined the case. The defense’s strategy of framing Combs’ behavior as part of a consensual—if “unusual” or even debauched—lifestyle obviously resonated with jurors.

The trial’s conclusion has evoked commentary from the remnants of the discredited #MeToo campaign. A report by the NBC News on July 4 said the verdict was a devastating “step back” for “sexual assault survivors and advocates.”

The NBC News report described #MeToo as “a broader cultural reckoning against sexual harassment and assault” and went on:

“It is heartbreaking,” Kaja Sokola, a former model from Poland who was one of three women who testified in [Harvey] Weinstein’s May retrial.

“A few years ago, we were more aware. Maybe because it was the first wave, people were paying attention to it,” she said. Now, it’s “suddenly started to shift to ‘Don’t believe all women,’ or ‘Women are liars.’”

In fact, the verdict demonstrated that the jury firmly believed in the democratic principle of “innocent until proven guilty” enshrined in the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which #MeToo has sought to undermine.

Sean Combs was born November 4, 1969, in Harlem, New York City, and raised in Mount Vernon after his father, Melvin Combs, was murdered when Sean was a toddler. His mother, Janice, worked as a model and teacher’s assistant, raising Sean and his sister, Keisha, in an environment marked by poverty and adversity. Combs attended Catholic schools, served as an altar boy, and played football, graduating from Mount Saint Michael Academy in 1987.

Combs attended Howard University as a business major but left after his sophomore year to pursue a career in music, starting as an intern at Uptown Records. He quickly rose through the ranks to become a talent director, helping launch the careers of major artists. In 1993, he founded Bad Boy Entertainment, which became a powerhouse in hip-hop and R&B, working with stars like The Notorious B.I.G., Mary J. Blige and Faith Evans. Combs expanded his brand into fashion, beverages and media, becoming an extremely wealthy and influential figure.

While many troubling aspects about Combs and his lifestyle emerged in the courtroom, the jury found insufficient evidence to convict him of the widespread criminal conspiracy painted by the prosecution.

Trump imposes massive tariffs on Brazil over trial of ex-president Bolsonaro for fascist coup attempt

Tomas Castanheira & Guilherme Ferreira

Brazil's former President Jair Bolsonaro and commanders of the Armed Forces, Adm. Almir Garnier Santos, Army Gen. Paulo Sergio Nogueira and Air Brig. Lt. Carlos de Almeida Baptista Junior. [Photo: Marcos Corrês/PR]

In an extraordinary act of imperialist intimidation, President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday the imposition of 50 percent tariffs on all products exported by Brazil to the United States. He directly linked the trade war measure to the ongoing trial of former President Jair Bolsonaro for the January 8, 2023 fascist coup attempt, denouncing the proceedings as a “witch hunt.”

The official letter sent to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Workers Party – PT) announced in its first paragraph:

The way that 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!

In addition, the US president took issue with Brazil’s Supreme Court (STF) over its amending of the country’s Internet Bill of Rights, expanding the liability of digital platforms for illegal content posted by users, even without a court order. This decision clashes with a presidential decree issued in late January by Trump, who came to power in close alliance with the oligarchs owning the main social media networks.

The letter attributed the imposition of tariffs, to start on August 1, “in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans.”

The first accusation—which implies the characterization of the Brazilian regime as a dictatorship—is apparently a reference to the denial of Bolsonaro’s right to run in the 2026 presidential elections. He was declared ineligible by the Brazilian Electoral Court in 2023 for his attempts to undermine the democratic electoral process.

The reference to “insidious attacks” on the “free speech rights of Americans” refers to decisions by the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) demanding the removal of content and accounts from sites such as Rumble and Twitter, which Trump called “secret and unlawful censorship orders to U.S. social media platforms.”

The letter also justified the trade war measures based on the claim of a “longstanding, and very unfair trade relationship” with Brazil. It absurdly claimed that trade relations with Brazil generate “unsustainable Trade Deficits against the United States” and that the “50% number is far less than what is needed to have the Level Playing Field.” In reality, the United States maintains a consistent trade surplus with Brazil, with US exports exceeding imports by US$ 7.4 billion in 2024.

The tariffs, which come into effect in 20 days, will have a profound impact on the Brazilian economy, with the US ranking as the country’s second-largest export market, trailing only China.

Representatives of Brazilian agribusiness, which massively exports products such as orange juice, coffee and beef to the US, were deeply alarmed by Trump’s measures. The same is true for Brazil’s steel industry, whose large exports to the US had already been hit by an increase in tariffs to 25 percent in March and later to 50 percent in June.

Assessing the implications of Trump’s announcement, the president of Brazil Steel Institute, Marco Polo Lopes, told Estado de São Paulo: “Everything was moving towards an agreement. Now, it’s unpredictable.” Calling on Brazilian authorities to keep up their negotiation efforts, he concluded: “This is not good for either side.”

The measures announced by Trump defy any attempts to present them from the logical standpoint of “negotiations.” Their purpose is to bend the Brazilian government to Washington’s will and impose a relationship of naked imperialist domination based on force.

They follow the same logic as the tariffs announced in January this year against Colombia, after President Gustavo Petro refused to accept flights carrying immigrants deported from the US under degrading conditions. Trump responded by announcing 25 percent tariffs on Colombian products, and Petro backed down.

The political logic behind these measures was analyzed by the Socialist Equality Group (GSI) in the International May Day rally: “Trump’s return to the White House marks a realignment of US imperialist foreign policy toward domination of the Western Hemisphere, seen as a necessary step in its offensive against China.”

The statement quoted Admiral Alvin Holsey, head of SOUTHCOM, who declared in a speech to the US Congress in February: “The [Latin America and the Caribbean] region is on the front lines of a decisive and urgent contest to define the future of our world. China is assailing US interests from all directions, in all domains.” Washington “must meet presence with presence,” Holsey concluded.

Significantly, Trump’s announcement follows the BRICS summit, which was hosted in Rio de Janeiro last weekend. Initially formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, the group added half a dozen more countries last year.

In a confrontation with the Trump administration, the BRICS summit’s final statement called for a comprehensive reform of the UN; advocated that each country establish its own regulatory framework for large technology companies; criticized protectionism, condemned tariffs and barriers that harm international trade; and repudiated recent attacks on Russia and Iran, one of the countries that joined BRICS last year.

Nevertheless, the summit—and Lula’s leadership in particular—did everything not to upset Washington and never named the US as the perpetrator of the criminal bombardment of Iran.

Before announcing the tariffs on products exported from Brazil, Trump had already threatened earlier in the week that any country that aligns itself with the “anti-American” policies of the BRICS will be subject to an extra 10 percent tariff.

In an emblematic statement, Lula’s Minister of Economy, Fernando Haddad, declared after the summit that “Brazil has relations with the whole world” and “cannot become an appendage of an economic bloc [i.e., BRICS].” Showing off his spinelessness and blindness, Haddad sought to tranquilize public opinion, declaring: “President Lula has a team sitting at the table with the US government discussing our bilateral agreement.”

Trump’s letter provoked panicked moves in the Brazilian government. After an emergency meeting at the Planalto Palace, Lula declared on social media: “Brazil is a sovereign country with independent institutions that will not accept being dictated to by anyone.” The government also announced it would impose reciprocal tariffs against the US.

In a reference to Bolsonaro, who led a coup attempt in early 2023 in Brazil that mirrored Trump’s January 6, 2021 coup, Lula said, “The legal proceedings against those who planned the coup are the sole responsibility of the Brazilian justice system and are therefore not subject to any kind of interference or threat that undermines the independence of national institutions.”

In an interview with Jornal da Record on Thursday, Lula expressed his astonishment at the letter and reaffirmed his desperate interest in reestablishing the basis for negotiations with the US. He said:

Look, I thought President Trump’s letter was apocryphal ... Brazil is a country that, if President Trump knew a little bit about, he would have more respect for. ... Brazil has had a 200-year relationship with the United States. A diplomatic relationship, a virtuous relationship, a relationship that benefits both sides. I got along well with all the presidents, I got along well with Clinton, I got along well with Bush, I got along well with Obama, I got along well with Biden.

At the same time, the PT and its pseudo-left allies reinforced their reactionary nationalist campaign, accusing Bolsonaro and his allies of “anti-patriotism” and hailing the common interests of the Brazilian bourgeoisie they represent.

The Brazilian corporate media also reacted nervously to Trump’s announcement. The main bourgeois newspapers published editorials harshly criticizing Trump’s tariffs and praising Lula for the measures taken so far. Estado wrote that “this is the work of mafiosos,” and condemned Bolsonaro and his allies, the most important of them, the governor of São Paulo, Tarcísio de Freitas.

Freitas blamed Trump’s tariffs on Lula himself, claiming that the president “put his ideology above the economy, and this is the result. They had time to honor dictatorships, defend censorship, and attack the largest direct investor in Brazil. … There is no point in hiding behind Bolsonaro.”

In an emblematic statement, the president of the Chamber of Deputies’ Foreign Relations Committee, Filipe Barros of Bolsonaro’s PL party, declared that “Lula is repeatedly provoking the US government ... aligning himself with the countries of the so-called ‘axis of evil.’”

At the same time, the media is promoting tremendous complacency. “Donald Trump’s history of announcing decisions that are never implemented casts doubt on the implementation of these additional tariffs,” stated Folha de São Paulo’s editorial.

Estado, for its part, stated: “[The] family and allies of the former president [Bolsonaro] celebrated as if they had won the lottery. And they believe that until the day of the Supreme Court ruling, there will be new demonstrations. ... It is unlikely that they will save Bolsonaro from almost certain conviction and imprisonment. And even more unlikely is that, with the exception of his fanatical supporters, a single Brazilian will be moved by Donald Trump’s words.”

The idea that Trump is just bluffing, or that his measures are inconsequential, is false and dangerous. For Brazil, which lived under a bloody US-backed dictatorship between 1964 and 1985, the escalation of the imperialist offensive marked by Trump’s statement has profound consequences.

Bolsonaro and his fascist military leadership have responded to the legal proceedings against the coup they conspired to carry out between 2022 and 2023 with a political offensive. On different occasions, Bolsonaro and his closest allies have presented the United States as the center of coordination for this political response.

Bolsonaro’s son, Eduardo, has been in the US since February, in intense meetings with Republican lawmakers to get the Trump administration to implement measures against the STF and the Lula government in response to the trial his father is facing in Brazil. The recent measure announced by Trump marks a turning point in this offensive, which will have explosive effects on Brazil.

Speaking to CNN before Trump’s announced tariffs, Eduardo Bolsonaro claimed to expect US sanctions against STF judge Alexandre de Moraes, saying: “This is what I have always sought here in the US, since there are no tools available in Brazil.”