Visas as weapons of power: The Brazil–US rift and the future of the United Nations

In recent weeks, the contours of an escalating diplomatic crisis between Brazil and the United States have become increasingly visible to the public. This crisis cannot be separated from the nature of the current international system, which remains dominated by unipolar hegemony, nor from the tools of coercion that Washington has mastered, primarily visas and individual sanctions. On one hand, the administration of US President Donald Trump intensified pressure on the Brazilian judiciary by imposing visa restrictions and sanctions on senior officials accused of involvement in the trial of former right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro, who faces allegations of attempting to overturn election results. This measure was condemned by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who described the revocation of Justice Minister Ricardo Lewandowski’s visa as “unacceptable,” transforming what began as an internal judicial case into an open political and diplomatic confrontation.

The crisis acquired an additional dimension with the approach of the United Nations General Assembly meetings. Leaked reports from Washington confirmed intentions to impose restrictions on certain delegations, including the Brazilian delegation. The dilemma here lies in the protocol dimension; traditionally, in the September General Assembly meetings, the Brazilian president speaks first, immediately followed by the US president, a symbolic arrangement acknowledging Brazil’s historic role in the United Nations. It remains unclear whether these restrictions would apply to President Lula himself or only to lower-ranking officials. Nevertheless, the very proposal constitutes a dangerous precedent, undermining established UN norms and raising fundamental questions about Washington’s commitment to the UN Headquarters Agreement, which guarantees unimpeded access for all delegations. Paradoxically, this scenario recalls recent US policies that denied visas to Palestinian leaders, including President Mahmoud Abbas, constituting a clear violation of the same agreement and highlighting the persistent problem of double standards in the international system.

The escalation did not stop at the judicial and diplomatic level but extended into the economic sphere, where Washington raised tariffs on Brazilian imports to 50 per cent, causing deep concern among business circles and compelling Brazil to threaten reciprocal measures. Simultaneously, Brazilian banks faced a complex dilemma after U.S sanctions included Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, placing financial institutions in a bind between national legal obligations and the pressures of the US-led financial system. This division precisely reflects how economic tools of dominance have become extensions of political decision-making in the North–South struggle.

READ: Brazil rejects appointment of new Israeli ambassador

The most sensitive dimension remains political. President Trump, who has consistently criticized Lula, views Bolsonaro’s trial as a direct threat to his transnational ideological project. Hence, his overt attempts to influence the Brazilian judiciary were explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court, which affirmed that it would not yield to external pressure.

Yet, this judicial–diplomatic clash also recalls another crisis currently affecting Brazil; the escalating tension with Israel. Lula’s positions supporting the Palestinian cause and his rejection of occupation policies have sparked an unprecedented conflict with Tel Aviv, resulting in public exchanges of accusations and the withdrawal of ambassadors. When this crisis is considered alongside Washington’s intention to potentially restrict the Brazilian delegation’s full participation in UN meetings, a structural connection emerges between two paths:

• The use of diplomatic punishment tools to silence voices opposing U.S – Israeli hegemony.  

• The hollowing out of the UN as a truly independent international forum, transforming it into an instrument of control aligned with imperial centers. 

Brazil’s response is expected to be multi-layered: diplomatically, it will insist on upholding international protocols and its judicial sovereignty; economically, it may resort to countermeasures such as tariffs or trade restrictions; and politically, it is likely to adopt a calculated escalatory stance on the international stage, leveraging regional and global alliances to defend its interests. In this way, the crisis transforms into a cycle of mutual escalation, where US judicial and political pressure meets Brazil’s diplomatic and economic resistance, making the path to restoring trust difficult.

A reading of these developments clearly reveals that what is happening is not merely a bilateral dispute between Brazil and the United States, but part of a broader structural shift in international relations. When visas turn into political walls, the United Nations becomes hostage to US-Israeli decisions, and the Global South, through its Palestinian and Brazilian voices, faces direct targeting. Visas have ceased to be mere entry documents and have become instruments of political siege, while sanctions are no longer tied solely to violations of international law but have become a means to coerce national systems and reintegrate them into the global capitalist framework on the terms of the dominant center. Denying visas to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas or contemplating preventing President Lula da Silva from delivering his speech at the United Nations reveals that the issue goes beyond individuals, it reflects an attempt to reshape the UN system itself. It is a system incapable of tolerating plurality and unwilling to accept the voices of the Global South when they deviate from the prescribed narrative.

OPINION: Gaza, Gen Z, and the reckoning on campuses

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.