Published 02/04/2026 17:30 | Edited 02/04/2026 20:46
The United States Trade Representative Office (USTR) included, in its most recent report, a list of Brazilian “obstacles” to North American commercial interests that go far beyond technical issues: Pix, the regulation of digital platforms and the so-called “blouse tax” now appear as obstacles to be removed. The document, which occupies eight pages dedicated to Brazil, reinforces threats from Section 301 — a unilateral mechanism that can result in punitive tariffs against national products.
The content analysis, however, reveals more about the contradictions of American trade policy than about supposed structural problems in the Brazilian economy. By criticizing public policies on digital sovereignty, consumer protection and industrial development, Washington exposes its strategy of using international trade as an instrument of geopolitical pressure.
Pix: Brazilian innovation bothers monopolies
One of the most revealing points of the report is the criticism of the role of the Central Bank in the creation and management of Pix. The document states that American companies “expressed concerns” about possible preferential treatment for the public tool over private payment providers.
The irony is evident: the United States has FedNow, an instant payments system launched in 2023 by the Federal Reserve, the American central bank. The difference is that, while Pix was conceived as a public infrastructure open to all participants in the financial system — reducing costs for consumers and small businesses — the American model maintains a strong influence from large private processors.
When attacking Pix, the USTR does not defend “free competition”: it defends the maintenance of a global payments oligopoly that charges high fees and controls transnational financial flows. Brazilian innovation, which democratized access to financial services and reduced dependence on international cards, is seen as a threat — not as an example to be followed.
Big tech regulation: sovereignty or “barrier”?
Another target is Bill 4,675/2025, which expands Cade’s powers to regulate digital platforms and classify companies of “systemic relevance”. According to the report, American companies could be “disproportionately affected” and fined up to 20% of global revenue.
Again, the contradiction is obvious. The United States is internally debating similar projects, such as the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, and has already imposed billion-dollar fines on technology giants for anti-competitive practices. The European Union, Washington’s strategic ally, implemented the Digital Markets Act with even stricter rules.
What the USTR criticizes, in fact, is not the regulation itself, but Brazil’s right to regulate foreign companies in its territory. It’s the old doctrine that global norms should be set in the North, while the Global South should just consume technologies and accept conditions.
Selective protectionism: the “blouse tax” and the double standard
The so-called “blouse tax” — a 60% charge on international orders under the simplified regime — is also on the list of complaints. The report highlights operational limits imposed by the Federal Revenue, such as ceilings of US$10,000 for exports and US$3,000 for imports.
What the document omits: the United States maintains much more severe tariff and non-tariff barriers. The “Buy American Act” requires national content in public purchases; the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act allocate hundreds of billions in subsidies conditional on local production; and the country maintains high tariffs for sensitive sectors, such as steel, aluminum and textiles.
Furthermore, Washington uses tariffs as a geopolitical weapon — against China, against Europe, against occasional allies. Criticizing Brazil for protecting its nascent industry, while practicing aggressive protectionism, is exercising a double standard that delegitimizes the “free trade” discourse.
Tariff standards: who defines “reasonable”?
The report also questions the Brazilian tariff average: 12.5% for industrial products and 9% for agricultural products in 2024. For the USTR, these are “relatively high” levels for sectors such as automotive, electronics, chemicals and textiles.
However, the analysis ignores structural contexts. Brazil is a developing economy, with industrialization challenges, regional inequality and external vulnerability. Moderate tariffs are a legitimate instrument of industrial policy, recognized even by the rules of the World Trade Organization for developing countries.
More serious: the report itself recognizes differences between tariffs “consolidated” in the WTO and those “effectively applied” by Brazil, generating “uncertainties” for American exporters. But it does not mention that the United States often applies extra tariffs unilaterally, outside of multilateralism, as happened with steel and aluminum in 2018.
Section 301: unilateralism as a norm
The chapter on Brazil reinforces questions already raised in Section 301, an investigation conducted by the USTR itself that could result in specific tariffs against national products. This mechanism, created in 1974, allows Washington to commercially punish other countries based on unilaterally defined criteria.
The WTO has previously deemed Section 301 incompatible with the multilateral trading system. Even so, the United States continues to use it as an instrument of coercion. By including Pix and platform regulation in this scope, the USTR transforms legitimate public policies into “trade barriers” subject to retaliation.
Digital sovereignty and development: the heart of the dispute
Behind the technical criticisms, there is a strategic dispute: who controls the digital infrastructure, data flows and technological standards of the future? Pix represents a Brazilian bet on payment sovereignty; the regulation of platforms, an attempt to balance power between global giants and national interests.
For Washington, these initiatives threaten the hegemony of American companies and the ability to project influence through technological control. Hence the pressure to classify them as “obstacles”.
Dialogue, not coercion
The USTR report fulfills an internal role: it responds to corporate lobbies and prepares the ground for protectionist measures. But, for Brazil, the message must be clear: public policies aimed at development, digital inclusion and defense of competition are not negotiable under threat.
The way to resolve trade differences is multilateral dialogue, not coercive unilateralism. If the United States wants strong trading partnerships, it must recognize that sovereign nations have the right — and the duty — to regulate their markets for the benefit of their populations.
In the end, the question is not whether Pix or platform regulation “hinders” American companies. It is whether Brazil will accept to subordinate its development priorities to the interests of foreign powers.
Source: vermelho.org.br