‘Tariflavio’ and ‘patriotism’ with an American visa, by Marcos Verlaine

This is the homeland, as long as it is authorized by Washington. That’s what it’s all about for the Bolsonaro clan. They are, once again, rejoicing, placing Brazilian sovereignty under the interests of the United States against the sovereignty of Brazil, Brazilians and the national economy.

Rarely has Brazilian politics produced such perfect irony as that involving the Bolsonaro clan and the new pricing¹ announced by the Donald Trump government against Brazilian products. And the “Tariflavio”².

For years, Jair Bolsonaro and his allies presented themselves as exclusive guardians of the homeland. They appropriated national symbols, wrapped themselves in the Brazilian flag, transformed green and yellow into party identity and distributed certificates of patriotism according to the political convenience of the moment.

But here comes a new real test of nationalism.

Foreign power announces tariffs that could harm Brazilian exports, companies, investments and jobs. And what do you see? National outrage? Mobilization in defense of economic sovereignty? Firm reaction against external interference? Not exactly.

Instead, part of Bolsonarism seems more concerned with finding justifications for Washington than with defending Brazil. This is a curious situation: when pressure comes from outside, Bolsonarist “patriotism” apparently goes into standby mode.

It’s like the English writer and lexicographer said Samuel Johnson³registered in 1775: “patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels”.

When Brazil becomes a detail

The most revealing aspect of this crisis is not only the decision of the Trump administration, but the reaction of central figures of Bolsonarism, especially Senator Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ), increasingly mentioned as a possible candidate for the Palácio do Planalto.

In any political tradition minimally committed to national interests, the priority would be evident: defending the country in the face of hostile measures adopted by a foreign government.

But the debate took a different turn.

The problem is no longer the economic punishment against Brazil. The focus became the Brazilian government, the Federal Supreme Court and the political opponents of Bolsonarism.

In other words, Brazil was relegated to the status of an extra in history itself.

The implicit logic seems to be the following: if the sanction helps to wear down internal adversaries, then perhaps this isn’t so bad after all. It is difficult to imagine a more explicit demonstration of how private political interests can override national interests.

PIX came into focus. Some applauded

Among the arguments used by the United States to justify the tariffs is the PIX. Yes, PIX.

The payment system created by Brazil became an international reference, reduced banking costs, expanded financial inclusion and modernized the national economy at a speed that few countries were able to replicate.

It would be reasonable to expect a unified reaction in his defense.

But the episode produced a unique scene: while foreign interests attacked one of the most successful Brazilian economic innovations of recent decades, sectors of the right preferred to transform the issue into yet another chapter in the domestic political war, which will lead to the October elections.

Perhaps this is the first time that a country has seen its national instrument of success being attacked externally and some of its political leaders showing themselves more concerned with defeating internal adversaries than with defending their own achievement.

“Nationalism” that works with GPS

The case reveals something deeper. Critics of Bolsonarism have long maintained that its nationalism is selective. It is emphatic when the target is within Brazilian borders. It becomes much more discreet when the pressure comes from outside, especially when it comes from ideological allies.

The current crisis seems to reinforce this perception.

If the Brazilian authority criticizes the interests of the Bolsonaro clan, the reaction is usually accompanied by fiery speeches about sovereignty. If a foreign power threatens sectors of the national economy, the tone becomes surprisingly “understanding”.

It is as if nationalism had a peculiar GPS: it works perfectly within Brazilian territory, but loses the signal when approaching Washington.

What would Bolsonaro’s new government be?

Therefore, the episode goes beyond the commercial discussion. This offers a rare opportunity to observe, in real time, what the logic of Bolsonaro’s eventual return to power would be. The issue is not photography next to Trump. Nor will I travel to the United States. The problem is the pattern.

When conflict arises between national interests and international ideological alignments, which side prevails? The defense of Brazilian industry or political loyalty to Trumpism?

The protection of national jobs or electoral convenience? Economic sovereignty or affinity with foreign centers of power?

These are questions that have become even more difficult to avoid after this new crisis.

The country above all. But below some interests

The Bolsonarist slogan promised to put the country above everything. But slogans have an inconvenient habit of meeting reality. And reality is usually less generous than political marketing. It’s the old and shabby one “patriotism” or “crazy nationalism”⁴.

Trump’s new tariff produced exactly this uncomfortable encounter between speech and practice. He showed that there is a huge distance between wearing the national team’s shirt and effectively defending the country’s interests.

The first gesture costs little. The second requires independence, coherence and a willingness to contradict even powerful allies when national interests are at stake.

It was precisely in this test that Bolsonarism “stumbled” again, to say the least. And perhaps therein lies the main lesson of the episode: for certain political groups, the homeland seems to be above all. As long as it is not necessary to contradict Washington.

When this happens, Brazil runs the risk of ceasing to be a sovereign nation and becoming something less ambitious: a kind of tropical department of other people’s interests.

And this is not exactly the future that most Brazilians imagine when they talk about patriotism.

Marcos Verlaine is a journalist, political analyst, parliamentary advisor to Diap and editor of Hora do Povo

^{_______________} 1 The Donald Trump administration proposed new 25% tariff

on a wide range of products imported from Brazil. The recommendation was announced by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). The measure is part of a commercial investigation based on Section 301, opened in July 2025. Read the main points to understand the justifications, economic impacts and political consequences of this decision: • Washington’s justifications –

official American report points out that Brazil commits unfair commercial practices that are harmful to US interests: • Attack on PIX

– Brazilian payment system is criticized for being free, broad and allegedly creating discriminatory barriers against big techs and US card operators. • Ethanol market –

The US accuses Brazil of restricting access to the ethanol market and not applying tariff reciprocity since 2017. • Digital and environmental policies –

Brazilian AI rules and illegal deforestation were also included as institutional justifications for punishment. • Court decisions –

The document even cites STF decisions (such as the annulment of Odebrecht evidence by Minister Dias Toffoli) to support retaliation • Economic impacts and affected sectors

– if implemented, the taxes could have a billion-dollar impact on Brazilian exports. Tariff design spared American domestic supplies, focusing on manufactured goods. • Highly affected sectors

– machinery and equipment, footwear, textiles, furniture, auto parts, steel, sugar, ethanol and fish. • Exempt products (not subject to taxation)

^{– coffee, meat (beef and poultry), orange juice, tropical fruits, oil, natural gas, ores and aeronautical components, such as those from Embraer.} 2

^{“Tariflávio” is a political term created by digital networks to associate the senator and presidential candidate, Flávio Bolsonaro, with the new customs duties of 25% imposed by the United States government, under the management of Donald Trump, against Brazilian products.} 3

^{Samuel Johnson (1709-1784), known as Dr. Johnson, was one of the most notable English intellectuals in history, distinguishing himself as a poet, essayist, literary critic, biographer and lexicographer. Johnson was not attacking the concept of love of country itself. He criticized the political opportunism of the time, pointing out that figures with shady intentions — the “scoundrels” — often hid behind patriotic rhetoric to manipulate public opinion.} 4