Jaffa, Israel — Outside of Ahva Elementary School in Ajami, a historic Palestinian neighborhood just south of central Tel Aviv, the mood was defiant on October 27, the day of Israel’s national elections. “We fear that if we do not get this government out of power, we will lose everything,” one Palestinian voter told me after casting her ballot.

It came as no surprise that she, like most of the Palestinian citizens of Israel I interviewed on Election Day, asked not to be named. Since October 7, 2023, more than 400 Palestinian citizens of Israel have been investigated by police for “incitement,” often over social media posts, according to the legal rights group Adalah.

During the 1948 war, which Palestinians call the Nakba, most of Jaffa’s nearly 100,000 Palestinian residents fled or were expelled. The fewer than 4,000 who remained were concentrated in Ajami, fenced in with barbed wire, where they lived under Israeli military rule until 1949.

Just weeks ago, it was not clear that the parties most Palestinian citizens of Israel vote for would even appear on the ballot. In September, Israel’s Central Elections Committee, a body of party representatives, voted to disqualify both Arab parties — which are led by and draw most of their votes from Palestinian citizens of Israel — from running in the election. The Joint List is an alliance of three parties running together to clear the 3.25 percent threshold needed to enter the Knesset.

Hadash, a left-wing party with roots in Israel’s Communist Party, is the only one of the three with both Jewish and Palestinian members. Ta’al’s platform has historically focused on the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Balad, a Palestinian nationalist party, calls for Israel to become a state of all its citizens, with equal rights for everyone.

The other party, running independently, is Ra’am, a conservative Islamist party led by Mansour Abbas, which in 2021 became the first Arab party to join an Israeli governing coalition.

The two Arab parties were eventually reinstated and allowed to run in the Israeli election, but only after an appeal to Israel’s Supreme Court.

As Israelis vote to elect the country’s 26th parliament (Knesset), Palestinian voters in the Ajami neighborhood said Gaza was at the top of their minds. Just down the road is a public memorial displaying photos of some of the more than 20,000 children who have, according to a UN commission, been killed by the Israeli military in Gaza since October 7, 2023.

The memorial, at Hajj Kahil Square, has been torn down more than once. In May, according to Bokra, a Palestinian news site, two men, one of them carrying a rifle, ripped the photos from the walls. The next day, Jaffa residents put them back up and renamed the traffic circle the “Gaza Children’s Roundabout.” Police, who ultimately answer to Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s far right minister of national security, have also tried to stop protesters from displaying the images.

Whether or not to participate in Israel’s national elections has long been a fraught topic among Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Whether or not to participate in Israel’s national elections has long been a fraught topic among Palestinian citizens of Israel. Some fear that voting in the election would lend legitimacy to a state that expelled most of their families in 1948 and maintains a military occupation over Palestinians in the West Bank, and that human rights groups say has committed genocide in Gaza; but others view it as their only way to gather power in the Knesset, especially more than three years after October 7.

An unprecedented wave of homicides in the community has also pushed many to the polls. At least 184 Palestinian citizens of Israel have been killed this year, putting 2026 on pace to surpass last year’s record of 252, according to the Abraham Initiatives. Police filed indictments in just 12 percent of homicides in Palestinian communities by June 2026, compared with a historic rate of indictments in 65 percent of cases involving homicides committed against Jewish Israelis.

On Israel’s Election Day, a recorded voice message went out to more than 1 million Palestinian voters from Sousan Sultan, whose sister Susan was killed in April 2025, and whose husband, Ziad, was murdered last August. “My sister was murdered, and she cannot vote in the election,” Sultan said in the recording, asking voters to cast their ballots in her sister’s name.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his main challengers have all ruled out forming a coalition with the Arab parties, even as polls suggest the opposition may struggle to reach a majority without them. Throughout the campaign, Likud (Israel’s largest right-wing party) and its allies have made those parties a frequent target of their campaign ads, using Palestinian electoral power as a way to drum up turnout among anti-Palestinian blocs.

Some ads depict images of Palestinian political leaders, including Ahmad Tibi, who was an adviser to Yasser Arafat, alongside center-right politician Gadi Eisenkot, whose Yashar party leads the opposition, proclaiming the choice is “the right” or “Palestine.”

In the Negev, the desert region in Israel’s south that is home to most of the country’s roughly 300,000 Bedouin citizens, many of whom identify as Palestinians, voter turnout has historically been low. But in this election, that appears to have completely shifted. In the Bedouin village of al-Atawneh, turnout had reached 64 percent by noon on the day of the election, the highest in the country, according to Central Elections Committee data. In the last election, it was 41 percent for the entire day.

“We are seeing record-breaking voter turnout in the Naqab [the Arabic name for the Negev] today for the Knesset elections, reaching unprecedented levels,” Huda Abu Obaid, advocacy coordinator with the Negev Coexistence Forum, told Truthout on Election Day. “However, right-wing groups are intentionally delaying the voting process, forcing voters to wait in excessively long lines.”

Many of the Negev’s Bedouin citizens live in villages the state does not recognize, which lack connection to the national water and electricity grids and where homes face demolition for being built without permits. Israeli authorities demolished a record 5,187 buildings in Bedouin communities in the Negev in 2024 alone, up from 3,283 the year before, according to the Negev Coexistence Forum.

Far right parties sent their own observers to polling stations in Palestinian communities, and rights groups reported long delays in the Galilee, in the north, and the Negev, both home to large Palestinian populations. The Central Elections Committee said it had found no evidence of systematic tampering and that polling stations would stay open past 10:00 pm for anyone still in line.

On Election Day in 2015, Netanyahu warned in a video that Palestinian voters were heading to the polls “in droves,” a message widely credited with driving a late surge in support for Likud. This year, he did it again, warning his base of high Palestinian turnout and claiming, without evidence, that his opponents were trying to steal the election.

With about 84 percent of all votes counted by Wednesday afternoon, no party bloc was close to reaching the 61-seat threshold required to form a majority in the Knesset. Netanyahu’s bloc was the largest, at 54 seats, but it was still down from 68 he held in the outgoing Knesset. Meanwhile, the opposition bloc (composed of all non-Arab parties running to unseat Netanyahu) won 49 seats. The Arab parties won a combined total of 17 seats, the most they have ever won in history. Turnout among Palestinian citizens reached an estimated 80 percent, breaking a record set in 1999, and surpassing the turnout rate among Jewish Israeli voters for the first time ever.

Jafar Farah, director of the Mossawa Center, a Haifa-based advocacy group for Arab citizens of Israel, cautioned against reading too much into the numbers. Farah was elected to the No. 2 spot on Hadash’s slate in May but withdrew in September. He said the rise in Palestinian turnout does not necessarily mean Palestinian citizens have renewed faith in the Israeli state or its institutions, or believe the ballot can end the military occupation of the West Bank (a theme in some of the Joint List’s campaign ads), or change conditions in Gaza. Instead, Farah said, many voters see casting a ballot as a form of “damage control.”

At least 184 Palestinian citizens of Israel have been killed this year.

“The increase in turnout projected in the 2026 polls, if it materializes, cannot automatically be interpreted as a return of trust in the Israeli establishment or in the Arab parties,” Farah said. “It may also reflect a growing sense of the need for political protection in conditions marked by uncertainty.”

A May poll by Tel Aviv University’s Moshe Dayan Center found that while more than 77 percent of Palestinian citizens of Israel want an Arab party in the next government, only 40 percent believe Jewish Israelis genuinely support a political partnership with them.

Netanyahu’s challengers offer little on the issues many Palestinian voters care about. Eisenkot’s party says it supports Jewish settlement wherever it is carried out legally and opposes a Palestinian state. Eisenkot himself has said anyone still thinking about a two-state solution after October 7 is “simply delusional.” Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who leads the B’Yachad list, has ruled out ceding any land to what he calls Israel’s enemies, an apparent reference to a Palestinian state.

As of today, the math appears simple: Without the Joint List or Ra’am joining the coalition, the opposition appears to have no way to form a majority in the Knesset. Yet Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Liberman, two right-wing opposition leaders, are still ruling out any government that relies on Arab parties, and Eisenkot has not dropped conditions for coalition partners that most Palestinian lawmakers are unlikely to accept.

Palestinian citizens of Israel turned out in record numbers to get the Netanyahu government out of power, but it remains to be seen whether the other opposition parties will join in their efforts.

Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro arrived in the United States on Tuesday, according to Mexican lawyer Simón Levy, who describes himself as a liaison to President Donald Trump’s MAGA movement. In a post on X made at 3:20 p.m., Levy said the failed presidential candidate had landed safely and credited U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio with orchestrating the operation.

As of the time this information was provided, the U.S. government, Brazil’s Foreign Ministry and the Federal Police had not officially confirmed his arrival. Brazilian authorities also had no formal record of the senator leaving the country.

“As I reported hours ago, Flávio Bolsonaro has arrived safely in United States. The mastermind behind this operation is U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. From the United States, free and safe, Flávio will lead the opposition against Lula,” Levy wrote on X.

The trip came after Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered Bolsonaro’s passport seized. According to reports, he fled Brazil overnight, accompanied by his family, with help from a small group of allies from both Brazil and the United States. The Federal Police found no record of him passing through a regular immigration checkpoint.

Bolsonaro’s legal team said their last contact with him was at 4:30 p.m. on Monday. Reports in the Argentine press mentioned a possible border crossing and a jet that reportedly reached Puerto Iguazú but never took off. The exact circumstances of his departure have not been officially confirmed.

Bolsonaro Said He Would Stay in Brazil, Then Fled the Next Day

Bolsonaro had said he would hand over his passport to the Federal Police and would not leave the country over the election results. That is not what happened.

Who Is Simón Levy

Simón Levy is a Mexican lawyer and businessman who presents himself as connected to the MAGA movement. He previously served in the government of Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

Levy had already said on social media that Bolsonaro was en route to the United States. He later announced the senator’s arrival and said Rubio was responsible for orchestrating it. In another post, he said a U.S. protection operation was underway to ensure the lawmaker’s safety.

Levy’s statements, however, have not been confirmed by U.S. officials. His claim of proximity to Trump’s political circle does not, on its own, prove that the U.S. government formally participated in Bolsonaro’s departure or his reception in the United States.

What Is Operation Alba

Operation Alba is a name Levy uses to describe an alleged political strategy involving Bolsonaro and U.S. activity in Latin America. According to Levy, the senator will lead opposition to President Lula da Silva’s government from within the United States.

In Levy’s account, the effort is tied to pressure from Washington on Venezuela, Cuba and Mexico, including economic measures. Levy also credited Rubio with orchestrating the operation. Levy has written about Operation Alba on his website.

Asylum Request or Fugitive From Justice?

Allies of Bolsonaro say he plans to request political asylum from President Trump. According to these accounts, that protection could extend to his wife and two daughters. The reported favorable signal from the U.S. government has also not been officially confirmed.

In Brazil, the Federal Police canceled both Bolsonaro’s regular and diplomatic passports. Workers’ Party (PT) lawmakers have requested his pretrial detention and asked that his name be added to an Interpol Red Notice. The Socialism and Freedom Party (PSOL), meanwhile, has asked the Senate to investigate whether he has abandoned his elected position.

His departure also upends the political plans attributed to him. Allies had said he intended to lead opposition to Lula’s government in Congress. With his trip to the United States, that strategy is now on hold, according to these accounts.

This article originally ran in the Brazilian labor union news portal TVT News, was translated with express authorization of the editor by Panamerican Dispatch, and can be read in its original Portuguese here.

If there’s one story MSNOW’s Rachel Maddow is known for, it’s her tenacious, years-long focus on a broad theory that Trump is a compromised agent of Russian intelligence installed by Russia via a shady patchwork of direct funding, loose connections, opaque meetings, election interference, Facebook ads, innuendo, and genuinely strange behaviors. From 2016 to 2025, Maddow mentioned Russia 6,126 times on her primetime program The Rachel Maddow Show. 

This analysis isn’t a commentary on the validity of the “Russiagate” story, as such. I think it was inflated, and served the ends of some of the worst elements in the US security state, but there was certainly an element of truth to it. (Trump is brazenly venal, and would presumably take bribes from anyone). At the same time, the conspiracy mongering veered into Loose Change territory and was, ultimately, contradicted by Trump’s own policies which—while rhetorically critical of Ukraine—have largely continued to arm and support the country in its four-year-and-a-half war against Russia’s aggression. 

The state of Israel is running what could very well be construed as GOTV commercials for the Republican Party during an election season.

What’s noteworthy is less that Maddow has covered Trump’s connections with Russia, and the associated seemingly weekly breathless developments. It’s that, over the past two years in particular, she has very conspicuously avoided a major story about another country influencing domestic politics in service of Trump and a pernicious reactionary agenda: that of Israel’s influence over the president, and its broader attempts to influence politics in the US. A report in Zeteo last week details how Israel is directly funding ads in swing states that not only advertise Israel’s alleged security benefits to the US, but show images of Trump’s 250 year celebration, the White House, and Trump’s ambassador to Israel, painting them in a heroic light. In other words: the state of Israel is running what could very well be construed as GOTV commercials for the Republican Party during an election season.   

This is, of course, just the tip of the iceberg. A Quincy Institute report in June calculated $1 billion in influence operations since 2023 directly backed by the state of Israel targeting the American public via lobbyists, TV ads, media campaigns, AI output-altering fake websites, propaganda delegations, building “business ties” with Silicon Valley, and a host of other, more opaque efforts. Israel’s attempt to influence US politics has exploded in recent years, and this is just what is disclosed: 

And all of this is one top of the decades-long multibillion dollar informal network of pro-Israel propaganda groups like the Anti Defemation League (ADL), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and Christians United for Israel (CUFI), organizations largely funded by American donors with ideological commitments to Israel, though not directly by the state of Israel. These groups frequently align messaging with and coordinate with the Israeli government, but there was always a thin veneer of plausible deniability. These latest efforts are not even bothering to maintain this veneer: Israel is, increasingly, directly funding influence operations—many of which have explicit ties to the Trump White House. Indeed, Trump has taken the unusual step of openly endorsing Netanyahu in his upcoming election, and several of Trump’s advisors, including his own son-in-law, are heavily invested in Israeli companies. His former campaign manager Brad Parscale literally runs one of the aforementioned Israeli influence operations. Put another way: Trump’s “ties” to Israel and the influence the state of Israel has over Trump is far better documented, much clearer, and much more consequential than any ties he has or ever had to Russia. 

Yet Maddow only covers one of these angles. 

Maddow rarely talks about Israel in general—much less its influence over Trump. And, on the rare occasion she does, it’s safely within the confines of “Netanyahu Bad/Israel Good” or “Netanyahu wants Trump to win the election” safe pseudo-criticism. As Mondoweiss’ Michael Arria noted in 2021, even before Oct. 7, 2023, Maddow understood how avoiding the topic would benefit her burgeoning career, mentioning Israel only six times from 2011 to 2021 in over 2,000 shows. As I document in my book on liberal media’s role in helping destory Gaza, How To Sell a Genocide, Maddow largely avoided the subject in the first year of the Gaza genocide, and didn’t mention it at all for seven of the first twelve weeks of the Gaza assault, despite over 3,000 Palestinians being killed a week by American bombs. And when she did bring up Gaza, unlike her broad, deep, and sympathetic portrayal of Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine, Maddow’s coverage was superficial and hurried. The one major exception among MSNBC primetime stars who did have the courage to center Palestine as something more than a box to check, Joy Ann Reid, was subsequently fired for what she says was her coverage of the genocide. 

Trump’s “ties” to Israel and the influence the state of Israel has over Trump is far better documented, much clearer, and much more consequential than any ties he has or ever had to Russia.

The most Orwellian moment of Maddow’s conspicuous silence on Israel was when she did a long, detailed segment on foreign powers’ influence on Trump’s attack on Iran on the first day of the bombing, entitled “Follow the money.” To kick off the segment, Maddow bizarrely handwaved away Israel’s involvement, telling her viewers, “There’s a lot of attention on Israel, and indeed Israel and the United States have worked together in the bombing campaign… but it is the Gulf Arab states that are arrayed against Iran.” She then proceeded to pin the nefarious influence entirely on “Gulf Arab states, countries like Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates in Qatar.” This isn’t to say these countries don’t unduly influence the Trump clan—this is well documented—but their influence is relatively small compared to that of Israel and the Trump family connection with Israel and pro-Israel donors and it’s not particularly close.  

Maddow’s defenders could argue that the major difference is that Israel is an “ally” of the US, whereas Russia isn’t. But, despite the fact that the majority of Americans do not agree with this sentiment in the normative sense, the “Gulf Arab states” Maddow accuses of corrupting Trump are also US allies, so this is obviously not the reason. The real reason is that she knows discussing the elephant in the room of Israeli influence over both Trump and US body politic more broadly would pretty much spell the end of her career, as it did with Reid and, to a lesser degree, other MSNBC/MSNOW personalities that were demoted or pushed out after October 7 for having the temerity to veer off the safe script of pseudo-criticisms of Israel. As I also document in my book, the first, last, and only time MSNBC/MSNOW’s parent corporation (then Comcast) directly intervened in MSNBC/MSNOW’s coverage was to dress down network executives for letting anchors Ayman Mohyeldin and Ali Velshi attempt to contextualize the October 7 on the day of the attack. Saying anything meaningfully critical of Israel would also compromise Maddow’s access to high status arch-zionists like Hillary Clinton, with whom Maddow is doing an event in two weeks at the pro-Israel Streicker Center. Whatever the reason, the liberal media personality who built her large, intense media following sowing paranoid visions of dark, reactionary foreign influence operations is clearly determined to not mention the most brazen, obvious, and deleterious one.

💾

In this episode of Rattling the Bars, Mansa Musa speaks with Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller, Co-Coordinator of the Haiti/Americas Team for the Black Alliance for Peace. They examine geopolitical relations and the unfiltered history of U.S. imperialism in the Caribbean—including economic warfare against Cuba, the state of Florida’s recent arrest warrant for former Cuban leader Raúl Castro, Trump and JD Vance’s racist criminalization of Haitians, and over a century of capitalist resource extraction and regime change in Haiti.

The Black Alliance for Peace in Miami, organizing alongside the Miami Coalition, seeks to end the blockade against Cuba. October 24–31 marks the Cuba Week of Action against the U.S. chokehold on Cuba, leading up to the International and National Day of Action on October 28. This aligns with the United Nations’ annual vote, where the international community will once again vote on the U.S. embargo on Cuba. 

Credits:

• Production/Post-production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Mansa Musa:

Welcome to Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. At Rattling the Bars, we examine the prison industrial complex, both domestically and internationally. Miami floor sits at the direct intersection of US imperialism across the Caribbean and Latin America. Joining me today is Dr. Kim Miller, an organizer in Miami fighting to end sanctions and the embargo on Cuba opposing termination of TPS for Haiti and building solidarity with nations targeted for their socialist or abolitionist revolutions. Welcome, Kim.

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

Thank you. I’m really excited to be here for this conversation.

Mansa Musa:

All right, so first introduce yourself to our audience and tell them about your work with Black Alliance for Peace in Miami.

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

Yeah, so my name is Kimberly Dawn Miller. I have a PhD in global studies with a concentration in environmental sociology. So I research particularly the Eastern Caribbean looking at the contradictions of the post-colonial state, neoliberal development regimes, as well as the politics of post-disaster recovery. So I kind of use a lot of my organizing to also inform my research. And right now I am the Miami point person for the Black Alliance for Peace Miami cluster, as well as the co-coordinator for the Black Alliance for Peace, Haiti Americas team. So Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and the Caribbean at large are very central to our anti-imperialist organizing and situating and centering Haiti in particular as a note of Black liberation and why we fight so hard for their sovereignty.

Mansa Musa:

Kim, you focus heavily on Cuba. Can you discuss the organizing you are doing locally in Miami and internationally against the direct tack on the achievement of the Cuban Revolution?

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

Miami, Florida is basically the heartland of Latin American counterrevolution, and it is a central city that has a lot of reactionary diaspora politics from Latin America, and particularly the Cuban exile community, the Venezuelan exile community, supporting some of the more far right policies, including the economic and oil blockade occurring on Cuba. So

Mansa Musa:

It’s

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

Been important though that we resist this notion of creating a monolith regarding the politics of Miami at the same time. So the Black Alliance for Peace in Miami, we work with the Miami Coalition to end the blockade on Cuba, which is a coalition of many different organizations as well as trying to fight in a decades long organization, trying to fight along with the national network on Cuba. And starting tomorrow, October 24th is the Cuba Week of Action against the US genocide on Cuba. And it’s through the 31st of October. And we’re really trying to mobilize for International and National Day of Action for Cuba on the 28th, which coincides with the UN’s annual vote where majority of the world’s countries will be able to vote on the embargo on Cuba. And we basically

Mansa Musa:

Want

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

To show that in Miami, Florida as well, the heartland of, like I said, Latin American counterrevolution, that not

Mansa Musa:

All

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

Voices in Miami support what this government is doing, specifically heightening sanctions as well as blocking solidarity, international solidarity with the Cuban people, as well as their access to even third party, like I said, financing. So we’re really just trying to show the economic strangulation that’s occurring and standing in solidarity with Cuba, the Cuban revolution, as well as those that are resisting.

Mansa Musa:

Okay. So let’s unpack the issues that’s taking place in Cuba as it relates to the international community. And you can address this from your experience and what you know to be a fact, you have on the so-called left in the United States anarchist with people that have a particular political ideology and they’re critiquing Cuba in the sense of saying that the centralization of the government is problematic and that if they didn’t have a centralized government, then it would be more likely they wouldn’t be suffering from the imperialist on slaughter. Talk about what’s your experience and what do you say about that?

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

Right. Well, I think there lies at a fundamental disagreement on maybe the nature of the state when it comes to how maybe a Marxist Leninist would view state power versus an anarchist. So one thing I’ve been trying to reference a lot of times is Lenin’s state and revolution where he clearly identifies that the state does not hover above class interests, class power. And if you see the state as instrumental to class antagonism and class power, then what does it mean when you have a state like Cuba that had a socialist revolution and that did expropriate from the bourgeoisie and actually identify class power within institutions? And I think when you look at the state not as a monolithic or a flattened character, but actually looking at the state in terms of its global configuration within, like I said, the capitalist world order, it becomes very clear that Cuba, the Cuban state is not inherently the same as the US state.

There are several colonial states, there are imperialized states, there are states in the imperial core. And then we have to recognize these differences to coming from a conclusion on the nature of the state, people’s power within its dynamic within the state, as well as the function of that state. And I do think when you have anti-imperialist states, it’s fundamentally different and they’re targeted because of they represent a more autonomous or sovereign form of development. And it’s hard to move toward no state, if you will, when you have the imperialist attack. So you just need levels of defense. Iran is another example. You need a state to defend against imperialist onslaught. And I do think that maybe putting the cart before the horse, it’s important to understand those differences. And in addition to that, I wanted to add that the dynamic between, for instance, grassroots popular power and communes is not necessarily antagonistic to the socialist state itself.

And I think that that’s important to demystifying the idea that there’s either just an authoritarian socialist state versus popular power beneath. And I think that just in my experience with Venezuela, even though we know there’s been a lot of restructuring to the Venezuelan state since January 3rd, I did see a popular consultation on International Working Women’s Day within the communes. And I did see that how they were trying to actually build their communal capacity, which Hugo Chavez said is the base for transforming the bourgeois state as well as capitalist social relations. So I do think that you can have a dialectical and sometimes, yes, antagonistic relationship between communes and the state, but I do think it’s important to understand that it’s not necessarily opposed and that they work within the Bolivarian process to get financing for infrastructure in their own productive capacity. So that’s one thing I wanted to add there as well as you can even see a country like China that has rural village cooperatives and land ownership.

And what does that mean for the actual community that it’s still a centralized party state, but they still have a communicative and a participatory democracy within that. Right.

Mansa Musa:

Okay. And I think that’s a very astute observation because I think that, and I’ve been a lot of these spaces, when people make an analysis, they have a tendency to the foundation be based on misinformation to begin with and they build out on that. They build out on, like you say, it’s a difference between the United States and the state that Lenin talked about with state revolution. Let’s shift our gears and talk about Haiti. Switching, we see a different history, not a socialist revolution, but an abolition one in Haiti, establishing the first Black Republic through slaves revoked, historically targeted by the United States imperialists. Haiti recently became the focal point of a campaign by Donald Trump and JD Vance. Given that Florida holds the largest Haitian population in the US, what are the local international dynamics that exist within that? It’s almost as if Tucson let overture ghost haunts anybody that got a view of history that’s imperialist.

The involvement by the United States and continues to destabilize it is criminal in and of itself. Talk about the Haitian aspect of your analysis.

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

Yeah, I mean that’s an excellent overview. I think it speaks to the idea of Black ungovernability and the idea that since 1804 when Thomas Jefferson snubbed Dasaline, it was always the idea that Haiti was going to be excluded. Haiti was seen as a model of Black liberation of formerly or enslaved people freeing themselves, creating its first independent state in Latin America. And what does that symbolize to enslaved Africans in the United States? It was the idea that Black sovereignty is a threat to the powers that be essentially. And these are the class contradictions that Dasaline was trying to actually resolve through a kind of form of early socialist egalitarian or agrarian reform that actually did occur when he was assassinated. But just thinking about the long history of foreign interventions in Haiti, like I said, they weren’t really given access to international credit through non-diplomatic recognition.

And then when France did recognize Haiti, they had to pay an indemnity. So the idea that it’s creating successive notions of debt that Haitians never want to take on, but the idea of, oh, well to recognize you, you have to pay for your freedom. And then we did in particular, in Miami, we actually did a teaching looking at the 1915 US occupation where the US rewrote the Haitian constitution to allow foreign ownership of land that was banned in Haiti, as well as making sure that it opened up to US capital to exploit rural workers to basically extract from the country. So the US has always had a very, and of course through Bank of New York, which is now Citibank, extracting, like I said, it’s gold, it’s resources. And I think that that’s an example even to this day since the current gang suppression force occupation after the multiple occupations from the UN, after the US, France and Canada back to coup in 2004 against Aristide.

I mean, you just see this constant history of intervention and occupation. And I do think, like you said, it’s to keep them destabilized because a functioning Haiti, a sovereign Haiti, that is, I believe, a model of what Black sovereignty could and should mean.

Mansa Musa:

So what are y’all doing to organize and change this narrative in terms of how Haiti is being looked at? Because that goes a long ways in terms of not so much as imperialist. Imperialis is going to lie. I think Gold would say when you’re dealing with propaganda, find a narrative, repeat it over and over and over again till people come to believe it. So we know that’s going to come from them, but talk about how y’all organize to get people to see the need to be involved in what’s going on in Haiti and aid and assist the Haitian people in their liberation.

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

Well, in the Black Alliance for Peace and the Haiti Americas team, we always say that Haiti’s crisis is one of imperialism. It’s not of the Haitian people where we work and move against narratives that dehumanize the Haitian public, that pathologize them. And I think it’s important, once you understand that the crisis is imperialism, you see it as an externally driven crisis. We know, for instance, that all the arms that the gangs are using, the paramilitary groups are using in Haiti come from Miami. They’re trafficked from Miami to the Dominican Republic into Haiti. So there’s an arms embargo on Haiti, and yet these weapons are flooding the country. And what does that mean around the source of the problem? Haiti is a weapons manufacturer, so the guns are getting there somewhere from the United States. That’s one way. We also look at the culpability of, unfortunately, a lot of Latin American governments.

El Salvador right now is actually trying to basically start war with Haiti by saying, “Oh, we have our four servicemen that were kidnapped and now we’re going to go in.” And it’s like, “Well, why are there Salvadorian troops in Haiti?” It speaks to this idea that there’s this global kind of almost subjugation of the Haitian people because this is the international community that is sanctioning Chad or Kenya going in and representing on behalf of the United States. It’s proposed military solution for Haiti, but it’s never looking at the political situation, never looking at the core group, the countries of US, Canada, France, believe Germany, also Brazil. We don’t know that. Brazil also has a long history of pressing Haiti. So I think it’s important that we look at all these factors and that we understand that the gangs are getting support by the oligarchs. And what does that mean?

And what is the relationship between the elites in Haiti, the violence happening against the mostly working class Haitians, and how do we address the root of the problem instead of, like I said, stigmatizing the Haitian people, as well as attacking them through TPS, which is basically saying that the US helped create these conditions and now we’re going to send them back to that. People aren’t temporary. Haitians aren’t temporary. And it’s unfortunate that the mass deportation of this regime is trying to keep Haitians, and like I said, exploit their labor when it’s convenient, but also keep them in a state of precarity. And like you said, Miami has a huge Haitian population, I think the second highest in the country, and they’re in particular fields like hospitality industry, construction, home healthcare, and they’re being devastated right now. The communities are definitely fearful, but we want to push back against the narrative.

We want to put an anti-imperialist analysis into our understanding of the Haitian immigrant and migrant presence as well.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, just the effect of imperialist. This is not people just not wanting to live a quality life. We remember Baby Doc, Papa Doc, and Tanta Liku. We remember when they was ravishing the country, being a full stool for imperialists, taking all the minerals and the natural resources out of Haiti and putting a little money in their pocket in comparison. So we are well aware, and that’s a good viewpoint as you especially, Dr. Kim, because we got to push back. I think that when they say their response to the oppression is the reason why they oppressed, you oppressed because you saying, “Get your foot off my neck.” But talk about how the United States and imperialists in particular, and this is a shift in terms of not so much the Trump administration, but the general attitude of imperialists and capitalists and fascists around the world, how they deal with Maduro and the fact that they talking about kidnapping Raul, but they threatening any country that stand up and try to identify with any type of sovereignty.

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

Absolutely. Well, I think for us, we understand that the illegal kidnapping of a head of state when it came to Maduro and his wife, Cylia Flores, and bringing them to Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, what does this say when the US gets to espouse and impose extraterritorial coercion against a sovereign country? And we know historically when the US would indict, for instance, Noriega from Panama, indicting for drug trafficking, even though he was the CIA guy until our grace. Well, he didn’t play ball geopolitically, and then suddenly he needs to be removed. We know again with the kidnapping of Aristide in 2004 and dropping him off in the

Mansa Musa:

Central

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

African Republic, this is not new what the US is doing. I think what makes this

Mansa Musa:

Particularly horrific

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

Is just knowing it’s the combination of the

Mansa Musa:

War

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

On drugs with the war on terror. So you have this narco terror label. We know that the US has sadly bombed 240 Caribbean and Latin American men on both extrajudicially for being narco terrorists. And you’re seeing, like I said, the collusion of, I do think these two kind of law enforcement mechanisms that is aligned with imperialist interests. So I think that’s one thing that we look at when advocating for Arizona peace and basically saying that the US and looking at the heart of US militarization in the region, this is not new, Venezuela wasn’t the first. And with, like you said, these indictments on Raul Castro, the indictments on the Cuban president, Diaz Canal. I mean, particularly in Florida, it was Florida that just put out a arrest warrant, which the state of Florida cannot actually arrest Raul on a sovereign country. But this idea of this performance, we were even tough on the communists.

I mean, it plays into a lot of red meat to their base, but it’s also just incredibly

Mansa Musa:

Illegal

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

And a part of how the US has operated, sadly, in this re-intensification of the Monroe doctrine that we’re seeing.

Mansa Musa:

We do remember this, and you can weigh in on this if you want to. We do remember this, the Iran Contra where they were selling guns for cocaine and the cocaine flooded the United States. And when it flooded the United States, you had the crime bill, and the crime bill was designed to make crack cocaine worse than powder cocaine, but any kind of cocaine was coming through the country through the military and the United States government with the goal of destabilizing Nicaragua and killing all American citizens. If you got a viewpoint on that, you can weigh in now.

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

Yeah, absolutely. I think it’s interesting, 60 Minutes before 60 Minutes became terrible. When they used to do journalism, they actually had a report after the invasion of Panama, and it basically said that looking at the post Noriega political climate, it’s been skyrocketing drug addiction of crack cocaine. Largely Afro-Panamanians would be addicted now to crack after the invasion. After the US invaded, then you see a rise of crack cocaine flooding the country. So it’s this weird kind of contradiction that they’re invading to stop the idea that drug trafficking is the reason that they’re going in, and then yet it’s gotten far worse. And I think that’s a similar idea when it comes to how the CIA moved through the concerts in Nicaragua to make sure that where that drugs are being funneled would be poor Black and brown communities and we’re the ones that suffer. So that’s why Black Alliance for Peace says no compromise, no retreat, which is the ways in which the war on African people here is connected to the global war on African people abroad.

And I think that’s just one excellent example.

Mansa Musa:

And as we wrap up, talk about the 60th anniversary of the Black Panther Party was this month, and the Black Panther Party, all organizations during that time that came up had an international platform. Aside of Shakur, Cuba gave a side of Shakur sanctuary. Huey was exile, gave him sanctuary. Al Jeria, we had a embassy in Algeria, Pete O’Neill and Shiloh O’Neill is in Tanzania. But talk about why it’s so

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

Important

Mansa Musa:

That our movement have an international perspective about our struggle.

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

Yeah. So thinking specifically when you have these kind of more narrow nationalist xenophobic movements coming up that try to say Black Americans, Black America, we’re not African. And thinking about the history of Black radical struggle, it was always internationalist. It was always about connecting the fight against imperialism and how that shapes the militarization of our own communities here, whether it was the 1033 program, weapons from wars being kind of funneled into local police departments that have a disproportionate effect on, like I said, Black people or the idea that the IDF will train local police departments here in the surveillance tech that both these states as they subjugate Palestinians. So that’s just another way that Black people here and Palestinians are connected. I think we have to look at things broader because understanding how we, I know some people like the domestic colony theory, that if we are an internal colony, then what does that look like?

What does that mean when our communities are occupied by police or even the shooting of Cullen Wiley in Mississippi being justified by their attorney general? I think you’re seeing that these struggles are connected, and I think that it’s really important that we don’t see ourselves as isolated, but that we have people we can tap into. And in my trip to Caracas in Venezuela, it was so surprising seeing so many Venezuelans that look just like me, Black people. And I was like, oh my gosh, because I don’t see as many Venezuelans that are Black, but there are, and how these struggles are shaped and Black internationalism is very important to fighting our own battle here, I believe.

Mansa Musa:

And you had a last word, Dr. Kim. What do you want to tell our audience and how can we get in touch with you or how can they become more involved in Black Alliance for Peace or understanding what’s going on with Cuba and y’all organization, y’all advocacy around Cuba and the diaspora?

Dr. Kimberly Dawn Miller:

Yeah. Well, so blackalianceforpeace.com/haiti, you can learn all of our resources on Haiti. Very important. We’re also on Instagram, Black Alliance for Peace, Twitter, Black Alliance for Peace, or Blacks for Peace on Twitter and Facebook. So we’re really trying to pick up our social media. And I also just want to point out that it’s the week of action for defense of Black migrants, and that’s just something that we’re working with. I mean, the Miami cluster is working with Baji, which is the Black Alliance for Just Immigration. And we’re just really trying to, like I said, spread our message on the war on African people here, being connected to the war on Africans abroad and driving out the heart of US militarization so that we can have a true zone of peace. And yeah, you can tap into our US NATO axis of domination out of our Americas network.

There’s a lot, but thank you so much.

💾

“There is nothing inevitable about the far right,” said one former Obama administration official Sunday night as supporters of the left-wing Student List in Serbia poured into the streets of Belgrade and other cities across the Balkan country, celebrating their defeat of right-wing President Aleksandar Vučić, who has led the nation for nearly a decade and has been accused of corruption and autocratic rule.

The Student List’s victory coincided with that of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who was also backed by a student-led movement that marched through Rio de Janeiro and other cities in recent weeks, as US President Donald Trump was accused of election interference on behalf of right-wing Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro, Lula’s opponent.

Both countries reported high voter turnout in the pivotal elections, proving, as journalist Anne Applebaum said, “that voters can alter what feels like a historical shift.”

In years of genocide
hope came from the young

In Serbia
2 yrs of youth-led protest -integrity, unity, perseverance- brought change

Today that hope is a rainbow
its far end in Brazil

May it shine
wherever wounds run deep
and the young are fighting the old

Humanity will prevail pic.twitter.com/jKA6n4EmFR

— Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) October 26, 2026

In Serbia, Vučić said it was “clear that we have lost the election,” as results showed his Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) had won about 105 seats while the Student List had won at least 135.

The Student List movement, officially registered by the Republic Electoral Commission as “Studentska lista—Studenti pobeđuju” (Student List—Students Win) began in November 2024 after the concrete roof of a newly renovated train station in Novi Sad collapsed, killing 16 people. Students and other Serbians blamed corruption and negligence by Vučić’s government, and soon began blockades at a majority of the country’s higher education institutions.

Rallies in the coming year drew hundreds of thousands of people. The political movement that grew out of the sustained protests called for an independent judiciary, a special prosecutor to hold public officials accountable, independent reviews of major infrastructure projects, a higher minimum wage, and better funding for education, healthcare, and agriculture.

A cardiologist and professor from Novi Sad, Ilija Srdanović, topped the list of 250 candidates that the Student List put forward ahead of the snap elections on Sunday, but the movement has said Srdanović will not automatically be its choice for prime minister. The list of candidates for Serbia’s 250-seat Parliament includes doctors, farmers, activists, athletes, and actors.

“Never again tyrants in our country,” Srdanović said after the defeat of Vučić, who was prime minister before becoming president in 2017 and has been Serbia’s central political figure since 2012, developing a reputation for threatening his critics and cracking down on press freedom.

One Student List supporter, Sara, told The Guardian in Belgrade, “It’s very strange that on the very streets where the police beat us, on the streets where we retreated countless times in the face of the gendarmerie, we are now standing here as the victors.”

Nebojsa Cosic said to Reuters: “The people have won! The people defeated a dictator! The people will lead Serbia!”

In Brazil, thousands rallied ahead of the runoff election between Lula and Bolsonaro, the son of convicted former President Jair Bolsonaro, a close Trump ally who is serving a 27-year sentence under house arrest for orchestrating a coup attempt after his election loss in 2022.

Right-wing candidates won a significant number of seats in the earlier elections, which followed Trump’s push to secure partnerships across Latin America—stoking fears that Bolsonaro could win Sunday’s runoff and pushing students to lead pro-Lula rallies and marches across the country.

At a Copacabana Beach rally in Rio on Saturday, supporters carried a yellow and green banner that read, “We are going to turn this around!”

Isabella Graze, a retired teacher who joined a 10-million member WhatsApp group aimed at mobilizing pro-Lula voters, told The Guardian that “being a soldier in Lula’s army… means fighting for Brazilian democracy. This isn’t a normal election.”

Huge respect to the organizers, activists and voters of Brazil and Serbia. These results are due to so much work and they give us so much hope. There is nothing inevitable about the far right.

— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) October 26, 2026

The Serbian and Brazilian elections came two days before Israelis are set to vote, potentially ending the long-running term of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, an accused war criminal whose US-backed government has waged war on Gaza, killing more than 74,000 Palestinians, and pushed to violently take control of more of the occupied West Bank.

They also came just over a week before the midterm elections in the US, with Democrats pushing for congressional control to rein in Trump for the final two years of his term. The campaign has been marked by openly racist, anti-Muslim attacks by Trump and his allies on Michigan US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, a Republican ad claiming that Ohio Democratic gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton lied about her abusive childhood, and persistent claims by the president that the cost of living is down, contrary to all evidence.

“Feeling so much hope from the results out of Serbia and Brazil,” said Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.). “This took tremendous people power, organizing, and grit. Now it’s time to turn our country around, too.”

Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said Sunday was “a good day for democracy.”

“Israel could be next on Tuesday, then the US midterms the following week,” said Roth. “The best case against the autocrats is the autocrat.”

In a historic comeback, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva triumphed in Sunday’s run-off election over right-wing challenger Flávio Bolsonaro, the son of former Brazilian President and convicted coup-plotter Jair Bolsonaro.

Lula’s victory comes despite the best efforts of US President Donald Trump and his Big Tech backers, as Trump’s administration openly intervened on behalf of Bolsonaro and Meta boosted pro-Bolsonaro over pro-Lula content on its social media platforms.

“Lula won, Brazil won, democracy won, the Americas won,” said Pennsylvania Democratic House nominee Chris Rabb from Lula’s campaign headquarters in Sao Paulo, Brazil, after the results were announced around 9:15 pm Brasilia time. “They declared victory for Lula da Silva for his fourth term against a raging fascist, rubber-stamped for Donald Trump.”

“These elections have represented a historic victory for the majority of the Brazilian people, who mobilized to defend democracy against the threat of fascism.”

Rabb noted that Lula’s victory marked an important turning point for the left in Latin America, as far-right parties had won every other national election in the region since the start of Trump’s second term. “This is the first victory for democracy in this hemisphere since Trump took office,” Rabb said.

ith 99.99% of the votes counted, Lula won by 51.79% to Bolsonario’s 48.21%, making him the first Brazilian candidate since the restoration of democracy in 1985 to win a second-round election after coming in second in the initial round.

“I would like to thank the Brazilian people for the generosity they have shown me for a long time,” Lula said in his victory speech in São Paulo late Sunday. “And, in this second round, I want to thank the generosity of the Brazilian youth, who took to the streets to defend democracy.”

After finishing two percentage points behind Bolsonaro in the October 4 poll, Lula re-energized his campaign by finally shortening the Brazilian workweek from six to five days, as his supporters launched demonstrations against the far-right.

“These elections have represented a historic victory for the majority of the Brazilian people, who mobilized to defend democracy against the threat of fascism,” Francesca Emanuele, senior international policy associate with the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), told Common Dreams from Sao Paulo, Brazil, where she was monitoring the elections. “It was the Brazilian people themselves (students, working-class, and middle-class Brazilians) who took to the streets and mobilized tirelessly from the very first day after the first round of voting to overturn the first-round results and secure Lula’s victory.”

Reginaldo Lopes, a federal deputy for Lula’s Workers’ Party, told The Guardian: “I feel incredible… This is Brazil telling the world that the extreme right is fascist, that the extreme right is against Black people, is against the poor, against the state, against gay people… We are going to reorganize the democratic forces [in this country.]”

Sunday’s victory did not come easily, as the Lula campaign complained of bus shortages in the key cities of Salvador and Sao Paulo, requesting that the Brazilian Supreme Court extend the voting by two hours. The court granted the request, so polls closed at 7 pm Brasilia time instead of 5 pm.

“Lula’s win is the first good news for the planet in a while!”

“Lula has won despite the unfair practices his campaign has faced from Meta, interference from the Trump administration, and severe disruptions to public transportation on election day in major cities (where up to 50% of bus fleets were reportedly out of service),” Emanuele told Common Dreams. “These disruptions disproportionately affected working-class voters, who rely heavily on public transportation and have historically been a key part of Lula’s electoral base.”

She continued: “Despite all these obstacles, Lula’s campaign managed to turn around a first-round result that, just a few weeks ago, had seemed extremely difficult to reverse. This is a major victory for the majority of the Brazilian people.”

Several advocates and lawmakers hailed the election results as a rebuke to the far-right and the Trump administration in particular.

“During his campaign, President Lula characterized 2026’s elections as a choice between ‘sovereignty or submission.’ Brazil has clearly chosen sovereignty,” the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who sent a delegation to observe both rounds of Brazil’s elections, wrote in a statement.

Progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) posted on social media: “People all across the world are fighting back against extremism. With Lula in Brazil, they just won. Authoritarian leaders always attack democracy because they stand no chance against the will of their people. Trump must respect the results and not undermine Brazil’s elections.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said: “Congratulations to Lula on his extraordinary reelection victory in the Brazilian presidential election. Lula has stood up for Brazilian workers & democracy—and will continue to do so in the next four years.”

“Lula’s hard-fought victory is an indictment on the right-wing wave sweeping through Latin America,” Joseph Bouchard, a journalist and researcher who focuses on Latin America, told Common Dreams. “Except for [ Salvadorian President Nayib] Bukele, the right across the region is still incredibly unpopular, and rightly seen as corrupt, autocratic, and uncommitted to fixing systemic issues. Lula shows there is still a fight for democracy worth having, while the region is plunged into its darkest, most regressive period since the Cold War. The entire region is populated by vassal states for US interests, who have declared states of exception to curtail rights, freedoms, and basic principles of social democracy, in the name of a failed and anti-human war on drugs.”

Lula’s victory also has planetary consequences, as he brought deforestation in the Amazon rainforest back down to record lows after it accelerated during the tenure of Jair Bolsonaro, who attacked environmental protections and Indigenous rights.

“Lula’s win is the first good news for the planet in a while!” wrote 350.org and Third Act co-founder Bill McKibben. “I bet it shaves a tenth of a degree off how hot our Earth eventually gets, which will save millions of lives. Thank you Brazil!”

Lula still faces a fight ahead, as Bolsonaro announced it was “impossible to concede the election result” due to the extension of polling hours, even though his team had also sought an extension in parts of southeastern Brazil because of unfavorable weather.

Bouchard pointed out that “Lula will fight an uphill battle with a far-right Congress, inept Supreme Court, and constant outside pressure..”

“Trump’s silence on the result is worrisome, with Flavio not conceding and demanding an annulment,” he told Common Dreams. “Sadly, much of the corporate press has legitimated these claims, despite the right’s concerted efforts at destroying democracy. No matter how much the authoritarians try to tip the scales, the people can still prevail, if the left is willing to fight. This might prove to be a confidence boost to the demoralized and overpowered left all over the region, and may hopefully set the region back toward progress, hard fought after decades of dictatorship and neoliberal transitions.”

US-based Lula allies urged others in the US to defend Brazil’s democracy from Trump administration interference and to take their own stand against the far-right in the upcoming midterm elections.

The DSA wrote:

However, the fight continues—the thin margin of this victory indicates that continued struggle and mobilization will be crucial. As global capitalism fails to solve worsening problems of its own making, the capitalists turn to right-wing authoritarianism. Brazil’s left-wing coalition will face a right-wing Congress at home, a hostile Trump administration in the US, and hostile capitalists both [at] home and abroad in the years ahead. We of the DSA stand in solidarity with our comrades in the PT [Lula’s Partido dos Trabalhadores], PSOL [Brazil’s left-wing Socialism and Liberty Party], and Brazilian social movements in this fight for democratic self-determination.

This solidarity means recognizing our country’s role in the threat to Brazilian democracy. These elections were marred by interference from the US, whether by Trump’s politically motivated tariffs, or by manipulation of social media by US-based tech companies like Meta. They aimed to subvert Brazil’s democracy to favor its far-right allies grouped in the “Shield of the Americas,” and to get their hands on crucial natural resources, such as lithium, cobalt, and rare earth minerals as well as petroleum and iron ore, which Brazil possesses in abundance and which Lula has sworn to protect as national patrimony. The DSA categorically denounces these meddlesome, imperialist efforts. We fight for a working-class foreign policy—one which centers peace, multilateralism, and respects national self-determination, free from US interference.

Rabb concluded his message with a call to action, and a celebration: “This is a big deal for us in the United States. This shows that Trumpismo is waning, and it is our responsibility now to make sure that we kill the beast. That beast is injustice, it’s oligarchy, it’s neoliberalism. All of these things. Now it’s our turn, folks. November 3 is right around the corner, but right now I’m going to party with these Brazilians.”

Update: This piece has been updated with commentary from Joseph Bouchard.

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Michael Fox:

Hi folks. Before I get started, let me just say that if you’re not already following Pan-American Dispatch, please check it out. That is our new website covering the Brazilian elections around the clock. It’s a project of The Real News in partnership with Global Exchange. We are on the ground in Brazil. You can find us at panamericandispatch.org or on Instagram X and bluesky@padispatch. Okay, I hope you enjoy the show. This week, Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters posted this video on his Instagram account.

Roger Waters:

You have an election on Sunday in Brazil. I love Brazil. I’ve done many, many. My name’s Roger Waters, by the way.

Michael Fox:

He looks straight at the camera. MPB, popular Brazilian music is playing softly in the background. I love how succinct his assessment is.

Roger Waters:

So the two candidates are Bolsonaro, who is the son of an asshole. He’s an asshole himself. He comes from a long line of assholes. He is in cahoots with the United States of America who want to steal everything that you have in Brazil that’s of any value, not just the Amazon forest, but also any minerals or anything that you might have. They want to give it to the Trump family and to Jared Kushner and those other assholes in the ruling elite. Okay.

Michael Fox:

He says he’s met Lula, that Lula’s an honest man and that people should let him go on working for them.

Roger Waters:

Sunday, the important thing is turnout. Turnout. It was only 78% in the first round. We need 90%, 95%, 100% turnout. If you have a grandmother who can’t get out of a chair to go to the polling station, carry her, put her on a donkey, put her in her car, take her to the polling station and vote, vote, vote. Only you can save Brazil from the machinations of the gangsters who pretend to be the government in the United States of America and their allies in Brazil like the Bolsonaros. Okay. Please, please, please.

Michael Fox:

Huge elections are taking place this Sunday, October 25th. In the first round on October 4th, far-right senator and presidential candidate Flavio Bolsonaro came in two points ahead of President Luis Idnacio Lula de Silva. Bolsonaro is the son of the former far right president Jair Bolsonaro, a close ally of US President Donald Trump. Remember, Jair Bolsonaro is currently under house arrest for attempting to carry out a coup to hold onto power after he lost the 2022 vote. Flavier Bolsonaro’s victory in the first round earlier this month was a shock for much of the country. Lula led almost all the polls ahead of the election. His supporters were despondent and then this happened.

The left woke up in Brazil. That is a student march in Nitaroy, Rio de Janeiro. The evening after the vote, the images filled people’s feeds. Hope spread like wildfire. This is just one meeting I attended in Florianopolis a couple of days after the election. That is the capital of Santa Catarina, one of the most conservative states in the country. They expected a couple of hundred people, thousands turned out. An impromptu march stretched for blocks into the city’s downtown. I spoke with one woman in the march. Her name is Luana Hiberu. She told me, “We’re making part of history, taking to the streets once again to defend the minimum rights that we have achieved and to ensure that our country doesn’t return to 1964 again,” she told me. 1964 was the year of the Brazilian coup that sank the country into a military dictatorship that would last for 21 years.

People on the streets in recent weeks say they are fighting for the country’s very democracy.

President Lula told people that he was getting to work. “Bolsonaro supporters had better get ready,” he said, “because we are going to defeat you.” Abstention in the first round was the highest the country had seen in nearly 30 years. Now the campaign was on to win over the undecided and the more than 30 million people who didn’t vote. Students led the way. Marches and rallies spilled over the country, the likes of which Brazil has not seen in a long time, organizing in cities and neighborhoods, pamphleting, talking to their neighbors, getting out the vote. Record-breaking rallies have taken place in cities across Brazil. More than a million people marched alongside President Lula down Paulista Avenue in Sao Paulo, and people have been organizing online as well, but it has not been easy.

Big tech, and in particular Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, have been actively helping to lift Bolsonaro’s presence online over that of President Lula. Meta temporarily suspended Lula’s campaign page on Facebook. It blocked more than a thousand pro Lula accounts and allowed its algorithm to benefit Bolsonaro while hindering Lula’s campaign. Meta admits that there has not been parity in its treatment of the candidates, but it accuses mechanical glitches. Meanwhile, a Meta AI chatbot admitted to one graduate student that, “Meta indeed has a clear political and economic interest in the election of Flavio Bolsonaro.” I want to talk about something important today. Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg is a close political ally of US President Donald Trump. Flavio Bolsonaro has promised that if he is elected, he will join Trump’s counter-cartel coalition and open up Brazil’s rare earth minerals to the United States. That is something that big tech companies are interested in because those minerals are necessary for their hardware, AI, and data centers.

The UN criticized Meta this week and called on the platform not to interfere in Brazil’s democratic process. UN special rapporteurs wrote in a statement, “Digital platforms should not become unaccountable gatekeepers of political debate, nor should their systems be vulnerable to undue influence from political actors.” Brazilians have protested at Meta’s headquarters in Sao Paulo, and they’ve turned to creativity to try and break the bubble of the algorithm and spread their message to precious undecided voters who can make or break this election.

Meta and its secret algorithm have become the latest tool of US intervention in Latin America. It is not a branch of the US government, but it’s working in tandem. A former Meta Brazil worker told journalist Lais Covella earlier this month that ahead of the election, Meta laid off a team of human moderators who reviewed content. The system was switched to AI. The person said, “That means decisions are now coming from a single automated command possibly issued from the United States designed to boost certain content while burying the rest.” We do not know what the Meta algorithm is. Meta won’t disclose it, but we can see what it’s doing and we can connect the dots. Joel Ferez Jr. is a political scientist at Rio de Janeiro State University.

Joao Feres Junior:

If you see that in general, the guys who own the companies, the CEOs and stuff, show external signs of being politically aligned with extreme right in the United States with Trump, right? So if you know that they divulge the way they conduct their business, and on the other tip, you get the results. They’re very imbalanced as we’re seeing here. You have enough reasons to at least suspect them, to suspect they’re doing something.

Michael Fox:

They are clearly doing something. They’re attempting to influence public opinion ahead of Brazil’s elections and thereby influence the outcome of the vote. That and much, much more in a minute. This is Under the Shadow, an investigative narrative podcast series that looks at the role of the United States abroad in the past and the very present. This podcast is a co-production in partnership with The Real News and NACLA. I’m your host, Michael Fox, longtime radio reporter, editor, journalist, the producer and host of the podcast Brazil on Fire: Stories of Resistance and the Battle for Free Speech. I’ve spent the better part of the last 20 years in Latin America. I’ve seen firsthand the role of the US government abroad, and most often sadly, it is not for the better. Invasions, coups, sanctions, support for authoritarian regimes. Politically and economically, the United States has cast a long shadow over Latin America for the past 200 years.

It still does. This is season two of Under the Shadow: Trump’s attack, episode 16, Meta and the Brazilian Elections.

Okay, so today, folks, I’m going to do things a little differently. I’m going to bring in a friend and fellow journalist to discuss where we are right now, what’s at stake, and in particular to look at the role that Meta is playing ahead of the second round of the Brazilian elections on Sunday. This is something he and I have been paying particular attention to in recent weeks. His name is Brian Meer. He has a master’s degree from Loyola University of Chicago and the University of London. He’s lived in Brazil for more than 30 years, and he co-hosts a weekly Portuguese language web TV program called Globalistas on Brazil 247. He’s a correspondent for Telesur English, and he works with me as an editor of Pan-American Dispatch, which we launched ahead of the Brazilian vote. All right, we’re recording. Brian, thank you so much for joining me today.

This is fantastic. I really appreciate it, and thank you so much for all of your work, always ongoing. These are insane times.

Brian Mier:

Thanks for having me.

Michael Fox:

So Brian, I want this to be… I kind of mentioned, I’m hoping that this can be kind of a conversation about what’s happening right now. We are a few days out from the vote, and I’m hoping to map this out for a US audience and for a podcast that is particularly focused on US intervention in Latin America. And there’s so many layers that you and I have been working on for the last month or more, and folks who are listening to this, if you don’t already subscribe and know Pan-American Dispatch, please check it out because we’ve been doing it around the clock for the last month, and we’ll be covering the elections around the clock, and we’re just translating tons of articles, and I think it’s really an important site for news and analysis of exactly what’s happening on the ground right now in Brazil.

But Brian, if we’re taking the 10,000 foot view, where do you see things right now?

Brian Mier:

Well, we’re in a crisis of democracy in Brazil. This is the most complicated election since the return to democracy because we have the son of a man who’s in jail along with 28 cronies of his for attempting to implement a military coup, a man who was a former operative during the military dictatorship. He was a captain in the army. We have his son running under the promise to immediately pardon his father and give him a high ranking job in the government, essentially turning control over the government to his father if he’s elected, which represents the biggest threat to democracy since the return, since the end of the dictatorship, because what we’re really talking about is a state of exception. It’s also a very big risk for the Amazon rainforest as Jay Bolsonaro is present slashed the budgets, dismantled all of the environmental protection agencies, including the satellite fire monitoring system, the universities that study the departments are studying deforestation just on a vast scale and gave constant dog whistles to loggers and soy plantation farmers and ranchers that they could cut out whatever they wanted.

And it’s a threat for sovereignty because we have a candidate for the first time in Brazilian history who’s promising to turn over control of his transition team to the Trump administration if he’s elected and also to provide monopolistic access to Brazil’s rare earths at the expense of all the other countries we’re interested, Brazil being the second largest reserves of rare earth minerals in the world.

And also it would be the last country, one of the last countries in the Americas and the largest country in the Americas that will cease to be governed by a leftist political party. So on various different levels, it’s complicated. And the only reason this election is even close, because there’s always been… I’ve been living in Brazil for over 30 years, there’s always been a percentage of the population that has fascist sympathies, far right sympathies. When I say fascist sympathies, I mean literal fascist sympathies. It’s not like calling an American politician a fascist or something. I’m saying that Brazil has a tradition of fascism that was manifest during the dictatorship. The reason that the election is close is because of the Silicon Valley tech fascists and political operatives like Steve Bannon who have been for years working with the Bolsonaros to use the same kinds of dirty tricks that Cambridge Analytica did to push toward Brexit in the UK, the same kind of tricks that were used to elect Trump and propel all of these other far right parties into power around the world, which is illegal data phishing or data access, purchasing data access from companies and micro targeting different demographics with emotional appeals and bringing people down rabbit holes on social media with conspiracy theories and whatnot to the point where a large percentage of the population is just scared and confused.

So this is why the election is close. The first round, some people expected Luma to win in the first round, some people expected Flavio Bolsnar to win in the first round.

You needed to get 50% of a vote plus one to win Brazil’s election in the first round because there were multiple candidates. Brazil has a multi-party system, there’s 29 political parties. Some people were expecting Lula to take it somewhere expecting Bolsonaro to take it. The polls put Lula two points ahead, three points ahead. Some of them had it tied. And in the end, Flavio Bolsonar won the first round by 1.8%, which sent out a big warning to different sectors of the population that might not normally support government as left wing as the Lula administration who are worried about the state of democracy in Brazil and also worried about sovereignty. So there’s been momentum growing on the streets. A few days after the October 4th first round election, Flavio Bolsonaro was pulling six points in the lead and that lead has evaporated now with most polls showing that they’re tied, some showing Lula a little bit in front, some showing Bolsonaro a little bit in the front.

The far right has a tradition of outperforming polls, so it’s basically up in the air right now with only a few days left until the election.

Michael Fox:

I think what’s interesting and important about right now, ahead of the first round vote, there was a lot of discussion about the role in the United States and the connection between the United States and Flavio Bolsonaro in the lead up going back months beforehand. And I dug into a lot of that stuff on this podcast. What’s interesting now is how much the conversation is really about Meta and about online manipulation, the algorithms, and that’s something I really want to talk about right now. We have been covering it constantly every day, numerous articles because it is a terrifying reality when you have a Silicon Valley company that is owned clearly by Mark Zuckerberg, that controls Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp and is very close friends with US President Donald Trump and is clearly trying to play politics in this election against Lula and his campaign. Brian, dive into where you see things with Meta right now.

How are they playing politics biased in this election? What have we seen?

Brian Mier:

Okay. Well, one of the reasons I enjoy being on podcasts is because normally news treats issues as almost binary things. So I want to avoid suggesting that it’s not the Trump administration, it’s not the US media in general, and it’s just Meta because there’s a long history of, for example, Elon Musk meddling in Brazilian politics and Donald Trump has made massive tariffs on Brazil and it’s basically extorting the population doing the same thing with the Biden administration did in 2024 in Venezuela saying, “If you vote for my guy, I will remove these punishments on you. Your economy will improve. I’ll remove the punishments.” Just like with Argentina in the midterm election, Trump said, “Well, I’m only going to bail out your economy if you vote for Malay’s party in the midterms. They maintain control of parliament.” So there’s that going on. Above and beyond that though, you have Meta.

So there’s a operative, a political operative who is in jail right now named Fernando Serimedo who was arrested for attempting to murder his pregnant ex-girlfriend who’s a lawyer in Bolivia recently. She’s now out of the hospital. She miraculously survived multiple gunshot wounds and she’s out of the hospital and she’s recovering and she’s talking to the media about what her husband was involved in. Now, we already knew that he was Miles’ big data manipulation guy, big social media manipulation, bot farm, merchant, controlling huge bot farms around Latin America. He was involved in influencing the Honduran elections, Peruvian, Colombian and Argentinian elections, and that he had close ties to both US intelligence agencies and the Bolsonaro family. But what she told Channel 14 in Mexico last week is that Fernando Cerameto and Flavio Bolsonaro’s brother, Eduardo, who is the CPAC representative for South America, visited Meta headquarters in the US and made a deal for the company to support Flavio Bolsonaro through algorithmic manipulation and to bury the reach of Lula during these elections.

And so there’s been a series of events that have shown that this is actually what they’re doing. First, a Brazilian journalist named Lais Gova spoke to someone inside Meta Corporation in Brazil who told her that right before election season started, Meta laid off most of its fact checkers and replaced them with an AI fact checking system that they believe was controlled from the US, which in itself is a crime in Brazil. Then both Amnesty International and the US NGO Echo ran tests with Meta platforms like Instagram and Facebook to see if they could break Brazilian election law by paying for advertising political ads from outside of Brazil. That in itself is a crime, but adding to that crime, the additional crimes of disinformation of the Brazilian electoral system, disinformation about the integrity of the electronic voting system, disinformation about the date of the election, and they paid for these ads and scheduled for them to run at a certain time and date so that they could cancel them if they were approved.

In the case of MSC International was from the UK, it was like 12 of the 20 ads that they tried to run made it straight through fact checking. And the aid that were rejected, they weren’t rejected because of the disinformation or the location, they were rejected for bureaucratic issues or something. They weren’t flagged as being fake content or something. And in the case of Echo, it was almost something like 17 out of 20 made it through. So they proved that Meta was breaking the law, allowing foreigners to take out campaign ads in Brazil. Then people started observing Meta’s AI that runs through its WhatsApp social media chatbot, and the AI was refusing to design logos for Lula, campaign logos or slogans or t-shirts or anything related to Lula. It was just refused. I said, “Well, I can’t do that.” But then it was designing them perfectly normally for Flavio Bolsonaro, and people began running all kinds of tests.

One example of something that was flagged by Lula’s campaign lawyers, his campaign team lawyers, was that one of the big accounts in social media supporting Lula is called Lula’s Troops. And so when you search for Lula’s troops in Meta AI, it gives you a link to a site called Flavio’s Troops. Or if you search for it in Instagram, I’m sorry, if you look for an Instagram, it would link you to Flavio’s troops. And if you try to make a hashtag with Lula, the first thing would come up would be lulathethief, whereas the hashtags with anything related to a negative portrayal of Flavio would only come in at the 18th or 19th hashtag that they would suggest when you’re trying to build a hashtag with Flavio Bolsonaro. And then on October 9th, Lula’s Instagram account was simply blocked from taking any kind of ads out for 24 hours, while Flavio’s was running perfectly normal, and Flavio’s allies were running propaganda for him like Nicholas Fajera was running perfectly normally.

So then once the page was reestablished, 24 hours later, Meta issued the statement very reminiscent of what they said, what Zuckerberg said when the Cambridge Analytica scandal surfaced saying, “Oh, I’m sorry, it was a technical glitch. We’re going to take measures to make sure that something like this doesn’t happen again.” So yesterday, Folio de Saint Polo, Brazil’s largest newspaper, they uncovered conversations, internal conversations from workers in Meta headquarters in Brazil in which they acknowledged that they had been artificially promoting extending the reach of the Flavio Bolsonaro posts and limiting the reach of the Lula posts.

These conversations also showed that the international system crash, but Meta had give it as an excuse for Lula’s ads being taken offline for 24 hours, had actually happened on October 7th. I said October 7th, but this Lula’s page was taken on October 9th. The technical glitch that they used as an excuse for taking down Lula’s page had happened for five hours on October 7th, and Lula’s page was taken down for 24 hours on October 9th after they had fixed the supposed glitch. So these things, last Friday, the Superior Electoral Court issued an order for Meta to provide more transparency on how it’s using its algorithms and to immediately cease accepting money from third parties to propel propaganda for Flavio Bolsonaro and to reestablish equality and algorithm reach between the two candidates proportionate to their number of users and whatever. And on Monday, it was proven that they hadn’t obeyed the court order.

And so today, Tuesday, Lula’s campaign team filed a complaint with the Superior Electoral Court to cancel the presidential ticket of Flavio Bolsonaro because of illegal algorithmic manipulation. Remember that the first round was very close.

Nobody is suggesting that the reason everyone voted for Flavio Bolsonaro was because of algorithmic manipulation of Meta, but it could certainly make a two to three point difference, a four point difference in an election, and that’s what people are worried about. Will Flavio’s candidacy be canceled? Probably not, but at least it’s on record. The hope now is that since the scandals are broken, Lula’s reach has grown on social media and a lot of activists are trying to break the shadow banning using a lot of different tactics that they’re sharing with each other and everything. But the real risk is that on election day, we see that on the October 4th election day, Lula and Flavio Bolsonaro’s reach was about equal up until about 12 hours before the polling stations opened. At that point, suddenly Flavio had seven times more reach than Lula, and it maintained that way all through election day.

So the risk is that foreign media starts doing these stories about how finally the Brazilian leftists have woken up and figured out how to use social media, and they’ve evened out the playing field on this imaginary democratic commons, which is these fascist corporation controlled social media platforms. These kind of stories are already circulating, and then on election day, Zuckerberg can just turn off the Lula reach button again and really screw Brazil’s democracy over and the Amazon rainforest and everything else in this country.

Michael Fox:

Yeah. Brian, there’s that incredible table that this organization, it’s a statistical organization actually, but they put it together, this graph of what the reach looked like of the Flavio campaign and the Lulu campaign in the month ahead of times. It was just this incredible image of first, the Flavio campaign was consistently above the Lulu campaign throughout the campaigns itself. And then just like what you said, as soon as it gets close to the election, It just spikes and skyrockets. Flavio’s campaign just gets a ton, ton of reach. And not just the 12 hours before, I think it was even a couple days before, you can start to see it climb and compared with lulas. And it’s just this shocking thing. And I just want to underscore this fact that these aren’t conspiracy theories. When we start talking about part of the problem is the simple fact that the algorithm, we cannot know it.

It’s proprietary. They should share it. Meta should be sharing this. People should know what’s in it. But due to the fact that it’s actually hidden, it means that we can’t know what they’re doing, but we can see the results. And I think that’s what we see in concrete. And there’s been all of these studies and reports and statistics. There are different groups that are fighting really hard in recent weeks and in recent months to try and get all the statistics and see. In fact, there was one case where they had seen more than 1,000 different pro Lula accounts had been messed with, taken offline, blocked, suspended. And I think that it’s really important to just underscore the fact that this isn’t like suppositions. This is concrete, this is fact. It is happening. Meta is actually playing politics. They are messing with these elections, using the algorithm and using everything they possibly can.

I think what’s fascinating at the same time is how people have responded. You kind of mentioned it briefly, what they call here in Brazil get out of the bubble. Because what happens in the world that we live in now in social media is that if you love Lula, you’re going to be seeing all Lula content on Instagram. And if you love Bolsonaro and if you love the far right, you’re going to be seeing all Bolsonaro content. What has been interesting is that there has been Bolsonaro content that has been kind of feeding into the Lula feeds just in the last couple days and things constantly changing. But what’s been fascinating is to see how people have been trying to use different tactics to break out of that bubble, use the images and the color, green and yellow, which are the colors of Brazil in which Bolsonaro is embraced as his colors.

And so using those colors, doing memes, using the same memes. There was one case where they said, “Take a pro Bolsonaro meme, but then use AI to switch it around and make it pro Lula.” And so there’s been just this fascinating creativity, I think, by Brazilians in recent weeks to try and respond to the shadow bans, respond to the bias by Meta in these elections.

Brian Mier:

Yeah. But more than the internet, the Workers’ Party historically has always dealt with a highly, highly antagonistic press. I mean, there’s professional corporate funded lawyers like Glenn Greenwald who go around pretending that Brazil’s mainstream media likes Lula, but it doesn’t hold up to any kind of even mildly systematic analysis. There’s a media watchdog group at State University of Rio de Janeiro called which monitors all of the headlines about candidates and politicians and governmental figures and ranks them as positive, negative, or neutral coverage. And so one thing that stands out in my mind, I remember from when I was translating the biography of Lula was that during 2017, the most popular nightly news program in Brazil, Jonas Lacional, owned by a global company, they aired so much negative coverage of Lula that it could have filled up an entire month of one hour nightly newscasts just saying negative things about Lula.

Michael Fox:

Wow.

Brian Mier:

And they didn’t even allow his voice to appear on the network for 10 years at one point. Every time they showed him, they would show him, but his voice wouldn’t appear and there’d be newscasters paraphrasing what he said as he appeared on TV. And we’re talking about two time ex-president at the time. So the PT has always had ways of dribbling around negative coverage in media and even social media. And so a lot of the mobilization work for the vote is happening offline right now. And you can see that in the smaller towns where, for example, on Sunday in a town called Paldalio in Peralambugu population 52,000, over half of the population of the city, the town was on the street at Alula rally and that was not organized over the social media. That was organized knocking on people’s doors. Old technology like a car with a speaker driving slowly through the neighborhoods announcing the time and place of the march and all this stuff besides social media.

I personally don’t believe it’s possible, although it’s these examples of breaking out of the bubble are admirable and whatever. These multinational corporations, Zionist, far right white supremacist corporations are powerful enough to cut those kinds of activities off before election day.

It’s just this kind of glimmers. To me, it kind of plays into this glimmers of hope about the, look, the internet really is a magic tool for democracy. Look at how these wonderful young Generation Z people are breaking out of the bubble. That’s not the real fight. There’s no way. You might be able to break out of this bubble for six hours or something before their watchdogs cut it off. There’s no way that this can overcome the massive favoritism. The only way to overcome the massive favoritism of Meta is in the court system and enforcing existing laws and regulations. There’s no private sector solution for this problem. They have to be threatened with taking them down in Brazil, like the Brazilian government took down X. If they really wanted free and fair elections, they would turn off access to Meta and X three days before the elections and just say it’ll come back on Monday.

Michael Fox:

Yeah, absolutely, Brian. And I think this is just to underscore this point that as folks who are listening to this podcast and folks who are following the news at the Real News and elsewhere, Silicon Valley is very, very much in the pockets of Donald Trump and they have been fighting against legislation and regulation around the world. But in particular in Brazil, we even saw this just last year. Brazilian Congress was working toward potentially regulating social media and the big tech companies sent, I think there’s 88 different moments where they sent in lobbyists to lobby people in Brazilia. A third of those was by Meta. So they have been playing games in Brazil and paying attention to Brazil and definitely Elon Musk, all of this. So this is extremely important point, Brian, that there needs to be regulation for big tech. And I think that question of how people have responded in the streets in recent weeks has been really, really powerful.

And it hasn’t just been, “Oh, we’re going to go out in March,” but it’s been, “We’re going to go to March. We are going to talk to our neighbors. We’re going to pamphlet wherever we can. We’re going to go to places to try and get that 30 million people who abstain from the elections who did not vote. We need to get them in to vote. We need to encourage them to vote for Lula.”

Brian Mier:

Exactly. Now, just to add to your point, I was just giving a few examples of the illegal activity by Meta that’s been going on to favor a candidate who’s basically threatening a break with the democratic rule of law and establishing a state of exception if he takes power. Meta AI admits it itself. There’s a grad student named Laura Morgado who started asking Meta’s AI chatbot why Meta is backing Bolsonaro. And it answered, “Trump and the Bolsonaros are the global political shield for big tech companies against the advance of European regulation and the Latin American left in Meta AI chatbot’s own words.” They explain exactly why they’re doing this.

Michael Fox:

Totally. And this was so incredible because she posted it on Instagram and then we made an article about it for Pan-American Dispatch. And folks, just so you know, I’m going to be adding in links to everything that we’re talking about today in the show notes. So you can find almost everything that Brian’s brought up are articles that we have also been either translating or running and publishing. So this is all so you can have access to it all.

Brian Mier:

Yeah. So basically the tangent I went off on about Meta was based on seven… What we’re doing is we’re identifying the progressive news media outlets in Brazil’s most interesting articles, articles we think would be most interesting for a northern audience every day and translating them. And sometimes framing them with additional information that Brazilian readers would take for granted, but US readers might not know. So that whole sequence of things I said about Meta, we’ve got six or seven articles that described everything that I just said basically, and others that mentioned things I didn’t even bring up.

Michael Fox:

Yeah. Brian, I want to dive into the Superior Electoral Court, Casio Nunez, Andre Mendonsa. I think this is really important to understanding this moment because just for listeners, I did an episode a few months ago that was looking at Brazil’s fight against disinformation in the past. And the Supreme Court was one of the main places, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Electoral Court. Remember, the Supreme Electoral Court is made up of members of the Supreme Court and other institutions, Brazilian institutions. But basically the Supreme Court historically in Brazil has been extremely important in pushing back against the far right and against Bolsonaro, and particularly when he was in power. We saw a very big push in the last two elections from the Supreme Electoral Court pushing back against fake news that was actual fake news. I remember one moment, I remember there was some fake news that Hadaji had, who was the presidential candidate in 2018 when Lulu was in jail.

They said, oh, look at these cars. Look at this huge car he has and he lives in this mansion. It was all just ridiculous. But that was the type of fake news that they were pushing back at the time. But at this point, things are very, very different. Brian, can you explain a little bit about this?

Brian Mier:

Okay. Well, basically Brazil has very strict campaign regulations and to oversee the elections, the voting and enforcement of these regulations, there’s an electoral court system and the highest court in the system is the Superior Electoral Court. It has five justices. Three of them come from the Supreme Court on a rotating basis and two come from lower court like the Superior Justice Courts, which is another high ranked, high level court in Brazil. We’re in a situation right now where after eight years of international efforts supported even by mainstream media outlets in the United States to de-legitimize Brazil’s judiciary, we’re stuck with a superior electoral court that’s not up to the task of stopping Meta right now and the other social media corporations that are trying to throw the election for Bolsonaro. And to make things worse, because of the way that the system is rotating, every two years they change the president of the Superior Electoral Court and it’s kind of like in order that the justice was nominated to the Supreme Court.

So just by chance, by random chance, the president of the Superior Electoral Court right now is a man who was appointed by Jair Bolsonaro. So he’s not doing anything to try to slow down the disinformation being spread to support the Bolsonaro campaign.

Michael Fox:

Well, not just that, but he and the vice president, Andre Mendonso, is also appointed by Jair Bolsonaro. And in fact, they’ve been using their place in the court to stop and to block accounts in favor of Lula and to pull down a bunch of legitimate information that’s not fake news that has been published and spread and posted online. They’ve been actually using their place, not just to battle fake news, but actually to support the candidacy of Flavio Bolsonaro.

Brian Mier:

Yeah. And before, just to preemptively prepare ourselves for being accused of both sides in the issue, which is the way that Greenwald is gaslighting everyone on social media right now who’s complaining about censorship, an example of something that was censored, it was taken off the air by Nunez Marcus, Casio Nunez Marcus, president of the Superior Electoral Court, was a labor union posting information about how the economic policies of the two candidates would affect their labor sector, specifically how the budget cuts being promised by Flavio Bolsonaro, massive Javier Male style shock doctrine budget cuts would affect their labor sector with actual statistics, information from economists and whatever, that was taken off the air. When the Justice Department under Lula tried to pull down accounts that were violating Brazilian law by inciting support for Nazism, neo-Nazism, that’s when people like Greenwald Tucker Carlson started crying censorship and it made it into the New York Times.

But I didn’t see these guys complaining about unions being pulled off the air for legitimately expressing actual stats and projections about what would happen if someone was elected president.

Michael Fox:

Yeah, it’s a really concerning moment and it’s made more concerning by the fact that depending on who wins this election, there are four seats that will be open on the Supreme Court. So the Brazilian Supreme Court is 11 seats on the Brazilian Supreme Court. Two of them right now were appointed by Jair Bolsonaro during his term. Four of the seats are coming up for grabs over the next four years. It’s a very similar situation where we were like just before Trump’s first term. So if Jlavier Bolsonaro wins this election, it’s very likely that he will be able to appoint four new members of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will then become majority for the Bolsonaros. And if you look at what the Supreme Court has meant historically in Brazil over the last decade as kind of the main bastion of the battle to push back on the undemocratic push, the authoritarian push by Bolsonaro, it is now going to be in the hands of the Bolsonaro family in the same way that Trump now controls the Supreme Court in the United States.

Brian Mier:

If the Supreme Court continues, because there’s a good chance that if Jair Bolsonaro gets power back, they’ll just implement a military coup. That’s what he was trying to do last time around when he was stopped.

Michael Fox:

Do you think that they would take it to that level, Brian?

Brian Mier:

Yes. This is what he’s been promising to do for his entire political career. Jair Bolsonaro, Flavio’s dad. For his entire career, he’s been promising to bring back a military dictatorship.

Michael Fox:

These are scary moments. What else do you think is important, Brian? And I want to talk a little bit about hope.

Brian Mier:

No, what’s important is that the huge wave of support for Lula on the streets led by young people shows that even if Flavio Bolsonaro is elected, it’s not going to be that easy for him. Remember, they had these… Jara Bolsonaro tried to start charging tuition at public universities and the national students unions historically connected with the Brazilian Communist Party and the teacher’s unions joined together to put over a million people on the streets in South Hollow on two different occasions with smaller but still very large protests in hundreds of towns and cities across the country and blocked Bolsonaro from doing that. They’re unable to block Bolsonaro from other things raising the retirement age. However, I get a lot of hope from talking to people at the rallies for Lula, and it’s a huge percentage of the population. It’s the majority of the population, the votes being manipulated, whatever.

But what we’re talking about is even if Flavio Bolsonaro wins by 1%, that still means that 74 million people in this country are leftists who support the left and are going to keep fighting. And you know what? Brazilians have a lot more experience operating under authoritarian regimes than Americans do in a sense.

So young people are talking to old people now, and I think that personally, I’m not moving out of here. If Flavio takes power, I’m not afraid. I know I’ll be okay because there’ll be so many other people supporting each other to fight these guys.

Michael Fox:

Absolutely. Absolutely. And what you said about the numbers in the streets is just, it is really incredible. There was over a million people that were marching in Sao Paulo just about a week ago. In many of these cities, we’ve seen some of the largest marches in a very long time, the largest student electoral march during election period here in Florianopolis. I mean, it’s been incredible and the amount of excitement and the amount of hope that people have. And like Brian said at the very beginning, that has dropped the numbers for Flavio Bolsonaro when he was maybe six points ahead of Lula just a few weeks ago following the first round vote, and now that’s decreased essentially to a tie, right?

Brian Mier:

And also it’s come out, Flavio’s under investigation for money laundering. He had some problems in the debate. There’s more and more dirt coming out in the mainstream media, so the tide seems to be turning right now. Who knows what will happen if Zuckerberg just turns off the Lula buttons on election day, but that’s why the street mobilization is so important because it can bypass having to rely on Silicon Valley to communicate with each other.

Michael Fox:

Yeah. I just want to underscore just part of why this election is so important right now is clearly the fact that for Brazil’s place in Latin America, what it represents is kind of this final bastion that hasn’t fallen to Trump and his people. I mean, one of the big things that, like I’ve talked about in this podcast, one of the big things that Flavio has mentioned many times is that the minute if he is elected, the minute he comes into power, he’s joining Trump’s Shield of the Americas, and he’s totally on board with just handing over the keys of Brazil to the White House and to more than the White House to the Trump administration. But I think what’s so important is clearly what Brazil represents in Latin America at this moment, but also the games that Meta is playing, this is not the only place it’s happening.

We saw in the United States just in the last couple days, the No Kings account was taken offline. A bunch of people and accounts supporting the No Kings demonstration in the United States in recent days have been taken offline or blocked or temporarily blocked.

We literally, our entire media sphere is controlled by a small number of very big outlets and they will not tell us how they’re controlling it. They are not sharing that information, and although they say that they’re being neutral, it’s not a reality, and we need to understand that. I think we need to look at Brazil and how people are trying to respond in Brazil to understand when these things are happening elsewhere, because this isn’t going away. It’s only going to increase. It’s only going to grow. The amount that people rely on social media for their news and information is only going to increase, and these companies are getting more and more powerful, and they’re ever more in the pockets of Donald Trump. This is a context that I think we really need to understand.

Brian Mier:

Definitely.

Michael Fox:

Brian, thank you so much, man. I really, really appreciate it. This was fantastic. Always great chatting with you.

Brian Mier:

Thanks for having me, and I will see you in Sao Paulo on Sunday, covering the elections.

Michael Fox:

That’s right. I will see you in Sao Paulo, and we will see all the rest of you online at panamericandispatch.org. Hi, folks. Thank you so much for listening. That is all for this episode of Under the Shadow. The second round vote of the Brazilian elections is this Sunday, October 25th. Please follow and subscribe to Pan-American Dispatch for everything on the elections. We’ll be doing live coverage of the vote throughout the weekend. Much of the reporting for this episode was based on stories that we translated and published with Pan-American Dispatch. I’ve added links in the show notes, or you can read and subscribe to the Substack at panamericandispatch.org. As always, you can find me at patreon.com/mfox.

There you can also support my work, become a monthly sustainer, or sign up to stay abreast of all the latest on this podcast and my other reporting across Latin America. If you’re looking for more information, news, and reporting on Trump’s onslaught, both on communities within the United States and abroad, please check out The Real News and NACLA. Both of them are publishing daily indispensable reporting. The theme music is by my band, Monte Perdido. You can find us on Spotify or wherever you stream music. This closing song playing right now is off our 2024 album, Ofrenda. I hope you check it out. Under the Shadow is a co-production of The Real News and NACLA. It’s produced in partnership with Global Exchange. This episode was written, researched, reported, and produced by me, Michael Fox. Thanks so much to Brian Meer for joining me on today’s show. You can check out his Substack.

It’s called Delinking Brazil. Thank you so much for listening. See you next time.

In the first round of voting on October 4, Trump-ally, far-right presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro came in two points ahead of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silvia. 

Lula supporters have been responding both in the streets and online. And they have been closing the gap, but it’s an uphill battle. Big Tech—and in particular Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp—have been helping to lift Bolsonaro’s presence online over that of President Lula.

Meta temporarily suspended Lula’s campaign page on Facebook, blocked more than 1,000 pro-Lula accounts, and allowed its algorithm to benefit Bolsonaro while hindering Lula’s campaign. Meta admits that there has not been parity in its treatment of the candidates but it blames mechanical glitches.

Meanwhile, a Meta AI chatbot admitted to one graduate student that “Meta indeed has a clear political and economic interest in the election of Flávio Bolsonaro.” 

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is a close political ally of US President Donald Trump. Flávio Bolsonaro has promised that if he is elected, he will join Trump’s Counter Cartel Coalition and open up Brazil’s rare earth minerals to the United States. That is something that Big Tech companies are interested in, because those minerals are necessary for their hardware, AI, and data centers.

Brazilians have protested at Meta’s headquarters in São Paulo. And they have turned to creativity to try to break the bubble of the algorithm and spread their message to precious undecided voters, who can make or break this election.

Meta and its secret algorithm have become the latest tool of US intervention in Latin America. It is not a branch of the US government. But it’s working in tandem. 

In this episode, host Michael Fox speaks with Brazil-based journalist Brian Mier. They discuss where things are now, what’s at stake, and in particular look at the role that Meta is playing ahead of the second round of the Brazilian elections on Sunday.

Brian Mier has master’s degrees from Loyola University Chicago and the University of London. He’s lived in Brazil for more than 30 years and he co-hosts a weekly Portuguese-language web TV program called Globalistas on Brasil 247. Mier is an editor of Panamerican Dispatch, which was launched ahead of the Brazilian vote.

Guests: 

• Brian Mier
• Joao Feres Junior

Resources About Meta in Brazil: 

• Meta Censors Over 1,080 Accounts Supporting Lula During Brazilian Elections
• Whistleblower Exposes Meta, Bolsonaro, and Cerimedo Election Meddling Partnership
• Meta Acknowledges the Reduced Reach of Lula’s Profiles
• Beyond Meta AI, Other AI Platforms Steer Content Against Lula
• Meta Discovers New Tool to Sabotage Lula’s Campaign
• Meta AI Admits and Explains Pro-Bolsonaro Manipulation
• Report Reveals Flávio Bolsonaro’s Campaign Paid AI Company to Manipulate Elections
• Meta Reaps Highest Corporate Earnings in Brazil’s 2026 Elections
• Meta Ignores Brazilian Court Order to End Bolsonaro Favoritism
• Complaint filed to disqualify Bolsonaro ticket over Meta ‘algorithmic manipulation’
• Hundreds Protest at Meta Headquarters in Brazil Against Far-Right Bias
• UN Presses Meta Over Manipulation in Brazil’s Election
• Brian Mier’s Substack, Delinking Brazil

Follow Under the Shadow on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

Under the Shadow is an investigative narrative podcast series that walks back in time, telling the story of the past by visiting momentous places in the present. Season 2 responds in real time to the Trump administration’s onslaught on Latin America. 

Hosted, written, produced, mixed, and edited by Latin America-based journalist Michael Fox. This podcast is produced in partnership between The Real News Network and NACLA. It is supported, in part, by Global Exchange. Theme music by Michael Fox’s band, Monte Perdido. Monte Perdido’s 2024 album Ofrenda is available on Spotify, Deezer, Apple Music, YouTube or wherever you listen to music. Other music from Blue Dot Sessions and Epidemic Sound.

Panamerican Dispatch

You can check out Michael Fox’s new reporting project on Brazil at panamericandispatch.org. It’s a project of The Real News in partnership with Global Exchange.

Follow us on social media 

Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/padispatch.bsky.social
X: x.com/PAdispatch
IG: instagram.com/padispatch
Tiktok: tiktok.com/@padispatch

Support Under the Shadow

Please consider supporting this podcast and Michael Fox’s reporting on his Patreon account: patreon.com/mfox. There you can also see exclusive pictures, video, and interviews.

Democratic US congressional candidate Brad Lander said Wednesday that he was released by Israeli forces with a “warning” after he and dozens of others were detained while helping Palestinians harvest olives in the illegally occupied West Bank.

“Several dozen rabbis and participants harvesting olives with me are still in detention,” Lander, who is Jewish, wrote on social media. “They should all be released immediately. To be clear: Palestinians face far worse consequences every day. These detentions by the IDF are one more attempt to undermine Palestinians’ right to harvest their olive groves, travel on their roads, and live in their homes.”

Prior to his release, Lander posted a video from a bus that he said was “taking us away for processing” after settler security called the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on the group harvesting olives.

“Let’s be clear: Occupation is a crime under international law,” said Lander, who is running to represent New York’s 10th Congressional District in the US House of Representatives. “Harvesting olives is not a crime under any law.”

I’ve been released from IDF custody with a “warning,” apparently because of my public profile (I told them I wasn’t even a congressmember yet, just a nominee).But several dozen rabbis & participants harvesting olives with me are still in detention.

— Brad Lander (@bradlander.bsky.social) 2026-10-21T13:34:39.826Z

Lander was part of a group of around 80 American and Israeli rabbis and activists who were detained by the IDF on Wednesday as they helped Palestinians harvest olives from a grove near an Israeli settlement in the West Bank. Israeli lawyers told NPR that the incident marked “the largest mass detention of activists in the occupied West Bank in at least a decade.”

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the US-based advocacy group J Street, said in response to the detentions that “when the government of Israel and its military and law enforcement are arresting rabbis and volunteers who have journeyed 6000 miles to protect Palestinian farmers harvesting olives and not the violent terrorists harassing and attacking the farmers—it tells you all you need to know about this government’s moral compass.”

“This illegal and immoral occupation must end,” he added.

The mass detention came after several recent instances of horrific Israeli settler violence against Palestinian olive harvesters, European diplomats, and an American journalist.

Heba Morayef, Amnesty International’s regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, said in a statement earlier this week that “Israel’s apartheid system is turning the olive harvest into a season of horror for Palestinian families across the occupied West Bank.”

“States must recognize that settler attacks are not isolated acts, but a central policy of the Israeli state,” said Morayef, calling on nations to “take concrete measures to respect their obligations under international law and to avoid complicity in Israeli violations and crimes against Palestinians by halting all trade, investment, and cooperation that contribute to maintaining the unlawful occupation, apartheid, and the ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing.”

“Hiding behind empty rhetoric is not only cowardly, it is enabling further abuses,” she added. “For Palestinians, it continues to be deadly.”

Supporters of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva returned to the streets on Sunday, October 18, for a nationwide mobilization in defense of democracy and the president’s reelection. The second round of the presidential election is set for October 25.

Demonstrations in various regions of the country brought together students, artists, social movements, and political leaders in a show of support for the president.

Carrying Brazilian flags, wearing red t-shirts, and holding signs, people occupied streets, squares, and avenues in state capitals, including Rio de Janeiro, Brasília, Salvador, São Paulo, Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre, Florianópolis, and Maceió. Many of the rallies were accompanied by musical performances.

View this post on Instagram

The demonstrations also aim to engage undecided voters and encourage people to participate who did not cast a ballot in the first round.

Some of these mobilizations are part of the “Bora Virar” (“Let’s Turn It Around”) initiative, which seeks to bolster Lula’s candidacy in the final stretch of the race against Senator Flávio Bolsonaro. The movement gained momentum following the first round of voting on October 4, when the far-right candidate finished ahead of President Lula.

This Sunday’s rallies are the latest in a series of demonstrations organized primarily by students and social movements since the start of the second round campaign. On October 11, a huge demonstration took place on Avenida Paulista in São Paulo, with Lula himself in attendance.

Ato musical pela democracia visto do alto!

vídeos: Victor Sales/ Mídia NINJA pic.twitter.com/QIoWBOrP6G

— Mídia NINJA (@MidiaNINJA) October 18, 2026

Rio de Janeiro: Artists Gather in Support of Democracy and Lula’s Reelection

Copacabana Beach, in the South Zone of Rio de Janeiro, served as the setting for a major concert and political rally in support of President Lula’s reelection this Sunday, October 18. Organized by singer Caetano Veloso and the “342 Artes” movement, the “Musical Act for Democracy” brought together artists from various generations and musical styles, alongside supporters of the president. The concert began around 2:00 PM near Posto 5, with musical performances starting at 4:15 PM, opened by singer-songwriter Edu Krieger. Artists in attendance include Caetano Veloso, Djavan, Simone, Marina Sena, Chico César, João Bosco, Frejat, Fernanda Abreu, Ivan Lins, Rubel, Duda Beat, and Xamã.

The rally transformed the Rio de Janeiro waterfront into a space for political and cultural expression, uniting music with the defense of democracy during the final stretch of the race between Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro.

The musical event in Copacabana also faced a legal challenge aimed at stopping it.

The right-wing Novo Party petitioned the Superior Electoral Court to block the demonstration, arguing that the artists’ performances could constitute “disguised campaign rallies.” Justice Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva, however, denied the request and allowed the event to proceed. The organizers clarified that the initiative is not part of Lula’s official campaign agenda and that a portion of the expenses would be covered by their own funds.

Actor Paulo Vieira, who hosted the event, criticized the legal attempt to block it. “They tried to prevent this event from happening, but they failed. Democracy is precisely this: the ability to create art, to sing, and to express oneself,” Vieira said. “This is not a campaign rally, it is not a ‘show-rally’, and it is not a campaign act.”

Members of the crowd wore T-shirts and displaying stickers supporting Lula. They also waved flags. Several politicians are present, including congressman-elect Guilherme Cortez (PSOL-SP) and Congressman Henrique Vieira, both from the left Socialism and Liberty Party.

Rio de Janeiro: Students Occupy Candelária, Chico Buarque Defends Democracy.

Also in Rio de Janeiro, students, social movements, and supporters of the president gathered in the Candelária area, in the city center, this Sunday morning. Organized by the National Union of Students and supported by political parties such as the Workers’ Party nd the Democratic Labour Party, the demonstration focused on defending public education, the youth, and democracy.

Participants occupied a stretch of Avenida Presidente Vargas, carrying flags, signs, and slogans in support of Lula’s reelection.

A major highlight was the appearance of singer-songwriter Chico Buarque, who was greeted by the crowd. Addressing the attendees, the artist spoke in defense of democracy and underscored the pivotal role of students in political mobilization.

Chico Buarque junto a los estudiantes en Río de Janeiro.

Como a fines de los 60’s, pero con 82 años, el cantante sale a enfrentar a quienes todavía enaltecen a la dictadura militar y quieren llegar a la presidencia. pic.twitter.com/2R5MALy1X9

— Nacho Lemus (@LemusteleSUR) October 18, 2026

“We are here to stand against brutality and subservience. Long live the students, long live democracy, and long live President Lula!” Chico Buarque said, to the cheers of the participants.

In Rio de Janeiro, a demonstration also took place near the Madureira Overpass, in the city’s North Zone.

Brasília: Supporters March Along the Esplanade Toward the National Congress

In the capital, Brasilia, supporters of Lula occupied the Esplanade of Ministries from the early hours of the morning. The gathering began around 9:00 a.m. in front of the National Museum of the Republic, with protesters setting off on a march in support of the president’s reelection. The mobilization led to road closures in the central area of ​​Brasília.

Around noon, the participants headed toward the National Congress.

En Brasilia hay una regla:

No hagas fotos aéreas de tus manifestaciones porque todo parece pequeño.

El acto en apoyo a la reelección de Lula fue la excepción este domingo. pic.twitter.com/rtbqCnwyQF

— Nacho Lemus (@LemusteleSUR) October 18, 2026

This mobilization came just days after another event held on the Esplanade last Tuesday (13), organized by the student union of the University of Brasília. Thousands of people took part in that demonstration, highlighting the role of the student movement in the reelection campaign.

Lula remained in Brasília throughout the day but did not attend the demonstration in person.

SALVADOR GIGANTE!
Ato pela democracia ⭐️❤️🇧🇷

Vídeo @thomaskarmi_1 / @midianinja pic.twitter.com/svm9vF3TBr

— Mídia NINJA (@MidiaNINJA) October 18, 2026

Salvador: Gilberto Gil, Daniela Mercury, and BaianaSystem in Rally for Democracy

In Salvador, music and political mobilization converged at a “Rally for Democracy” held on Sunday, featuring prominent figures from Brazilian culture.

The gathering began at 1:00 p.m. A sound truck led the rally, which marched toward the Farol da Barra lighthouse. Among the artists who made an appearance were Gilberto Gil, Daniela Mercury, BaianaSystem, Zélia Duncan, Armandinho Macêdo, O Kanalha, Rachel Reis, and Buja Ferreira, lead singer of the band Timbalada.

The lineup also included traditional groups from Afro-Bahian culture, such as Ilê Aiyê, Cortejo Afro, Filhos de Gandhy, and Banda Didá.

Conceived by Daniela Mercury, the event was presented by its organizers as an independent civil society initiative aimed at defending democracy, freedom of expression, and collective rights.

The mobilization also expressed support for Lula’s candidacy.

São Paulo: Mobilizations Hit the City’s Poor Neighborhoods

In São Paulo, supporters of Lula organized demonstrations across different parts of the city, with a special focus on low-income neighborhoods. In the morning, crowds gathered at Largo da Batata and Vale do Anhangabaú. Aadditional events were scheduled for the afternoon in areas such as Grajaú and Itaquera.

The mobilization aimed to extend the campaign’s reach beyond the central districts of São Paulo, foster direct dialogue with the public and win over new voters during the final week before the election.

This Sunday’s events followed a series of demonstrations that gained momentum in São Paulo after the first round of voting. On October 11, supporters of the candidate occupied a long stretch of Avenida Paulista in an event that included the participation of Lula himself. Reports indicate that the gathering spanned approximately 12 city blocks along the avenue.

Belo Horizonte: Supporters Return to the Streets for the Second Consecutive Day

In Belo Horizonte, protesters gathered at Praça da Estação, in the city center, starting at 11:00 a.m. Organized via social media, the event brought together supporters of Lula’s reelection bid and sought to encourage popular participation in the runoff election.

The demonstration took place one day after another large rally was held in the city. On Saturday, October 17, participants marched through the streets of the city center.

Minas Gerais is a key state in the presidential race. In the first round, Flávio Bolsonaro received 47.03% of the valid votes in the state, while Lula garnered 45.16%. In light of this result, Lula supporters intensified their efforts to increase his vote share among Minas Gerais residents.

Porto Alegre vc sempre será gigante mesmo! 📸 @leodacostas pic.twitter.com/zhfv4N5IyN

— carlos droid da silva (@carlosdvieira_) October 18, 2026

Porto Alegre: March and Concert

In the capital of Rio Grande do Sul, supporters of the president began gathering around 11:00 a.m. at Largo Zumbi dos Palmares. The demonstration brought together leftist political leaders from the state, with participants dressed predominantly in red and carrying flags of the Workers’ Party and Brazil.

Um mar de gente no largo da Catedral em Florianópolis pic.twitter.com/AcKpBgO652

— Portal Desacato (@portaldesacato) October 18, 2026

Florianópolis: Thousands Participate in March in Support of Lula

In Florianópolis, thousands of Lula supporters took part in a march through the city center. The rally began around 11:00 a.m. and included the presence of artists, political leaders, and representatives from movements allied with the Workers’ Party candidate.

Following the march, the demonstrators gathered in front of the Metropolitan Cathedral of Florianópolis.

O Corredor Vera Arruda, em Maceió (AL) tá tomado pela maré vermelha!

📹 jhessyek / CC Mídia NINJA pic.twitter.com/8J0PF0AHd2

— Mídia NINJA (@MidiaNINJA) October 18, 2026

Maceió: March Highlights Defending Education and Sovereignty

In Maceió, supporters of Lula took to the streets of the capital of Alagoas for a march in favor of the president’s reelection. Images shared by the account “Alagoas Que Queremos” (“The Alagoas We Want”) show a large gathering of demonstrators with flags, banners, and signs.

Among the causes championed by the participants are the promotion of public education, national sovereignty, and the continuation of social investments. The demonstration is also part of efforts to secure additional votes during the final stretch of the presidential campaign.

Rapaz, nunca vi nada parecido em Curitiba! Ato GIGANTE em apoio a Lula. Repito: EM CURITIBA!

Nenhum ato da extrema direita chegou perto disso.#AtoPelaDemocracia pic.twitter.com/8b8NFCed83

— Lázaro Rosa 🇧🇷 (@lazarorosa25) October 18, 2026

Curitiba and Other Cities Also Join the Mobilizations

In Curitiba, supporters of Lula held a demonstration starting at 1:00 p.m. at Praça 19 de Dezembro, located in the center of the capital of Paraná.

In addition to the state capitals where demonstrations have already been reported, events also took place in cities across states in more than half of the country.

The runoff vote is scheduled for next Sunday, October 25.

This article was originally published by ICL Noticias. It was translated by Panamerican Dispatch. You can read it in its original language, Portuguese, here.

On August 18, Fernando Cerimedo was arrested in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, for hiring hitmen to assassinate his ex-partner, Nadia Beller, who was pregnant at the time, after she threatened to go public about his large-scale illegal bot farm operations to throw elections for far-right candidates across Latin America. Still recovering from the multiple gunshot wounds she miraculously survived, she gave an interview this week on the Ventana al Mundo program on Mexico’s public television network, Channel 14. During the interview, she explained how Cerimedo and a member of the Bolsonaro family, who is assumed to be Flavio’s brother Eduardo, met with Meta officials to plot interference in Brazil’s presidential elections. She also said Cerimedo’s largest bot farms are still operating, and that his group is planning to interfere in the Claudia Sheinbaum administration in Mexico. You can watch her interview below. Beneath that, is a transcribed and translated excerpt from her interview.

View this post on Instagram

“In early August, Fernando sent me a photo with one of the Bolsonaros in the United States. I can’t pin down the exact date right now, because, as I told you, my phone is with the public prosecutor’s office. But between the first and the fifth of that month, while he was in the United States, he sent me a photo and told me they were discussing the campaign, that he was going to seek financing and that he was going to take part in that campaign, in that election, one way or another. And what they did with Meta is straight out of a playbook. They have very good contacts at Meta. In fact, there was a journalist whose page they had taken down themselves, and Fernando stepped in to get it restored, and he told me at least three times that he had very good relationships at Meta and could get any page taken down or put back up. I have no doubt that his team, his group, intervened for this. I understand there are complaints about electoral violations by Meta, that some dirty war campaigns were allowed through, along with the suspension of Lula’s accounts. I have not the slightest doubt that this was part of a strategy by this team to strip away Lula’s visibility.

The bot farm they took down here is tiny, it’s minuscule. From the very first day I gave interviews, I said there was a much bigger one. I told them where it was. They never touched it. I imagine it’s still active. I don’t think it’s in the same location anymore. It was in the business district. They never touched it, and the same goes for Argentina. I know they have their own bot farms there too. I imagine Fernando’s arrest caused some disruption, and for a moment they went inactive, but they’re fully active now. I’m a victim of it myself, because it spreads lies. His lawyer goes out and says some outrageous thing, and it immediately gets amplified by their bots. So I myself am a victim of their farms, and they use them everywhere, in every single country, with exactly the same modus operandi.

He also told me he was going to get involved in the Mexican election and would have his own candidate, because they were extremely interested in removing her, the president, from office. How do they get involved in elections? As you mentioned before: by distorting public debate, through cognitive fraud, dirty war tactics, buying influencers, their coordinated bot farms that organize attacks, that manufacture trending topics. All of that, what does it do? It distorts public debate.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered Israel’s attorney general and the heads of the Israeli military and Shin Bet security service to investigate the soldiers and officers interviewed anonymously in the documentary film NAZA.

Netanyahu called Sunday for the agencies to identify “all those who are involved or appear in the libel film” and to prosecute them for “serious information security offences, criminal defamation, and harming Israel’s diplomatic and security interests.”

In a letter to IDF Chief of Staff, the head of the Shin Bet, and Israel’s attorney general, Netanyahu decried the film for “present[ing] a false, misleading and biased narrative that defames the State of Israel and the IDF around the world and severely damages Israel’s standing.”

The film NAZA features anonymous interviews with 24 Israeli soldiers and officers involved in remote mass killings of Palestinians in Gaza over the past three years. The soldiers’ faces are obscured and voices are altered for anonymity as they speak with journalist and director Yuval Abraham on rooftops in Tel Aviv.

NAZA reveals how Israel’s AI-based surveillance systems have been used to facilitate and execute remote killings of thousands during Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The film’s title is a Hebrew military acronym for collateral damage – as in, the number of Palestinian civilians deemed acceptable to kill in a bombing with a military target. In one instance, a soldier tells director Yuval Abraham that the military approved the killing of 500 Gazans for one target.

The film and its directors have faced attacks by the Israeli government since its world premiere in September at the Venice Film Festival. Both the Israeli culture minister and Netanyahu have called for revoking the Israeli citizenship of the film’s directors, Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, while accusing them of treason and defamation. The IDF chief called the film a “blood libel” and “an attack on the State of Israel.”

Upon the film’s premiere in the U.S. in late September, Netanyahu compared NAZA to “launching dozens of ballistic missiles at Israel.”

Several Israeli civil society organizations, including human rights group B’Tselem, criticized the attacks on the filmmakers, and called for “an end to the wave of incitement and threats of violence against them.”

Abraham and Szor produced No Other Land, the 2024 documentary focused on Israel’s displacement of Palestinian villages in the West Bank, along with Palestinian activist and journalist Basel Adra and Palestinian researcher and photographer Hamdan Ballal. After the film won major international awards, including an Academy Award, members of the film’s Palestinian crew were attacked by both Israeli settlers and soldiers.

Earlier this month, Israel put forward a hastily-produced rival film to counter NAZA; last week, the Israeli government announced that it was awarding the filmmakers “for their contribution to Israeli public diplomacy.”

The Guardian, which produced the film, has pushed back on the Israeli government’s attempts to discredit NAZA. On October 1st, a Guardian spokesperson said that “The process of assessing the credibility of the testimonies was rigorous. It included leaked classified documents, detailed verification of specific strikes and corroboration via a wider pool of confidential journalistic sources who did not appear on camera in the film.”

The Guardian added that the team that produced the film interviewed “more than 100 sources familiar with IDF systems used in the war in Gaza, including senior-ranking commanders directly involved in the authorization of strikes.”

Much of the material in the film had already been published in reports at The Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Israel’s left-wing publication, Local Call.

In a 2024 piece co-published by +972 Magazine and Local Call, Yuval Abraham explained how AI systems like “Lavender” and “Where’s Daddy” identified low-ranking Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives as military targets. After October 7, 2023, Israel’s military decided that these tens of thousands of people could be bombed inside their homes with their families – even tracking and monitoring their children in order to strike their homes. In NAZA, one soldier spoke about using the gruesomely named “Where’s Daddy” AI system to track a 12-year-old girl before killing her. According to Abraham, the Israeli military was also aware that much of the AI systems’ data was also faulty – some 10-15 percent of the people identified as targets were not militants or operatives whatsoever.

In an interview, Abraham explained that NAZA also reveals the extent of the dehumanization of Palestinians within Israeli society – including among the self-identified Israeli “center-left,” which disproportionately took part in the aerial bombardment campaign on Gaza. The aerial bombardment campaign has constituted “some of the most heinous crimes in Gaza,” Abraham argued, as it led to the killing of thousands of Palestinian toddlers in their homes – and it was led largely by members of the center-left opposition against Netanyahu.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, said technical glitches impacted posts and ads from President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s campaign, but has categorically denied any electoral interference benefiting other candidates.

Lula’s campaign petitioned the Superior Electoral Court and the National Agency for Data Protection last week, alleging “strong suspicions of an attempted interference in the Brazilian electoral process to benefit the candidacy of Flávio Bolsonaro.”

The Superior Electoral Court gave Meta 48 hours to respond, and the company submitted a document on Monday, October 12, reiterating the claim regarding technical issues and asserting that its algorithms are neutral and auditable.

Meta Acknowledges Glitches but Denies Interference

In a document submitted to the Superior Electoral Court, Meta acknowledged the occurrence of technical glitches that affected ads and posts from Lula’s campaign but rejected the campaign’s central accusation: that it was favoring the far-right candidacy of Flávio Bolsonaro.

“Facebook Brazil categorically rejects such a premise. The claim is false, unsubstantiated, and does not hold up when confronted with the facts and objective data presented herein,” reads a statement from the company, which is led by Mark Zuckerberg, who has allied himself with President Donald Trump in the US.

The company maintains that “Meta’s content distribution systems do not operate based on ideological criteria” and that “Meta does not operate its systems to disadvantage or favor candidates.”

According to the document, community standards apply equally to all users, and neutrality is described as a “design attribute of the systems themselves, with criteria that are objective, public, and auditable by the Electoral Court.” The company also stated that the technical issues mentioned did not exclusively affect Brazil or specific accounts.

What Meta failed to provide, according to Lula’s campaign, was concrete evidence that the glitches had affected other Brazilian candidates or other markets to a similar degree. The lack of verifiable data to support the claim of widespread impact is precisely the point Lula’s team disputes; this makes the “technical issue” explanation insufficient as a response to the formal complaint filed with regulatory agencies.

Accusations by the Lula campaign and the Involvement of Regulatory Agencies

On Saturday, October 10, Lula’s campaign filed a formal complaint with the Superior Electoral Court and the National Agency for Data Protection describing a pattern of issues that has persisted, according to the campaign, since last December: ad account failures, interruptions in view counts, and restrictions on boosting posts. Collectively, Lula’s team said, these incidents systematically reduced the president’s digital reach on Meta’s platforms.

To support the suspicion that their opponent was being favored, the Workers’ Party’s communications department conducted an analysis revealing a significant figure: Flávio Bolsonaro’s page recorded, on average, 2.96 times more engagement than Lula’s, despite having 17.2% fewer followers.

The PT campaign questions the company’s explanation: “The company claims that this ‘glitch’ affected other advertisers and markets but provided no evidence of this—let alone proof that the problem affected other candidates in Brazil as well. Once again, Meta claims it was a ‘technical issue’.”

The involvement of regulatory agencies signals that the dispute will not remain confined to the realm of public statements. By setting a 48-hour deadline for the company to respond, the Superior Electoral Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegation during the pre-election period. The Data Protection Agency, for its part, has the authority to investigate how platforms handle personal data, opening up a regulatory front that runs parallel to the electoral process.

Meta’s Track Record in Elections and the Issue of Neutrality

Meta cites its own track record as a defense against claims of bias. In the document submitted to the Superior Electoral Court, the company states that its “institutional conduct across more than 200 elections since 2016—and in Brazil since 2018—is incompatible, both logically and historically, with the theory of deliberate manipulation in favor of a candidate.”

The company also says it has made investments exceeding $30 billion in security teams and technology over the past decade, including artificial intelligence systems and human analysis teams covering more than 70 languages.

The problem with this argument is that the company’s track record is not free from controversy. In March 2018, the company then known as Facebook Inc. acknowledged “failures” that allowed Cambridge Analytica to harvest data from tens of millions of users to target campaigns during the 2016 US presidential election—when Donald Trump was first elected—and the UK’s Brexit campaign. In July 2019, the company was fined $5 billion by the US Federal Trade Commission for allegedly misleading users regarding privacy controls over their information, a direct consequence of the scandal.

The current context adds a significant political dimension: following Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, Mark Zuckerberg announced he would work alongside the Republican leader against countries or governments advocating for social media regulation, a stance that repositions Meta within the global contest over digital sovereignty.

In Brazil, where the debate on platform regulation is ongoing, citing a “technical issue” to explain reach disparities during an election campaign cannot be accepted as a sufficient response—especially given a history that combines admitted failures, multi-billion-dollar fines, and the declared political alignment of the company’s top executive.

This article first appeared in Revista Forum, was translated by Panamerican Dispatch with authorization from the author, and can be read in its original Portuguese here.

No doubt you’ve seen it yourself, or read about it: Meta, the tech giant behind Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, manipulating engagement on certain accounts or banning pages and posts outright to limit the reach of specific political groups.

Here’s something that happened to me. I recently set up a second Instagram account. I never interacted with, followed or liked any far right content. I only followed progressive accounts: Brasil 247’s page, the Landless Rural Workers’ Movement, Lula and a few others. So what showed up first in my feed? A reel from Lucas Pavanato. Yes, the same far right extremist who won more than 3 million votes for federal deputy on the strength of his viral social media clips. Let’s be honest about how he got those millions of views. It wasn’t charisma, and it certainly wasn’t political substance.

Jeferson Miola, a columnist and political analyst at Brasil 247, shared an account of his own: “Instagram took down the page of SAJU, the legal aid service run by the law school at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul,” he said. “SAJU was founded in 1950, and it provides free legal help to low income people. Instagram removed the page after it posted support for Lula’s reelection. That’s a university institution being shut down for political and ideological reasons. It’s a clear restriction of freedom of expression.”

When media personality Fábio Porchat, who has 7.5 million followers on Instagram alone, posted a video video calling out abuses at senatorial candidate Michelle Bolsonaro’s prosperity gospel church, Lagoinha, Instagram pulled it offline with no explanation. It only went back online after a wave of public pressure.

I could list case after case all day. But one account stood out to me in particular: someone who actually works at Meta Brazil. I’m protecting her identity, as journalism allows, so I’ll call her Lira. Here’s what she told me:

“At Meta, there’s a whole team of human moderators who review content. They decide what gets approved and what gets flagged, whether it’s political violence, sexual content, or anything else that crosses their line. These are people with judgment and critical thinking, making real decisions, even while working within the platform’s guidelines. Right in the middle of Brazil’s election season, a large number of them were laid off and replaced almost immediately by AI systems. That means decisions are now coming from a single automated command, possibly issued from the US, designed to boost certain content while burying the rest.”

It’s no secret that Meta has been cutting jobs worldwide. What’s not public is which jobs these were, what those employees actually did, or why the company chose this specific moment in Brazil’s political calendar to make the switch.

There’s a bigger issue here too. AI doesn’t just follow orders, it scales them, instantly and at massive reach, whether the intent behind them is good or bad. All it takes is one command. Maybe from one billionaire.

Zuckerberg’s Unapologetic Support for Trump

Lira’s story connects a lot of dots. Pavanato showing up in my feed, Porchat’s video disappearing, a university page getting banned: all of it could trace back to a single AI instruction, one that executes instantly with no human review at all.

In 2025, Meta’s CEO doubled down on his alignment with the Trump administration, the same administration that openly admits to meddling in Brazil’s politics. “The government can either be actively against you, adding friction and getting in your way, or it can actively help you break down barriers,” Zuckerberg said. Asked about backing Trump specifically, he called it “the right thing to do.”

This partnership isn’t subtle. The support runs both ways, and there’s a real appetite here to control entire countries, Brazil especially. Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court and federal government still try to regulate social media and hold Big Tech accountable to the Constitution, as we saw recently with Discord. For Meta, getting Flávio Bolsonaro into the presidency would mean restoring the lawless digital free for all his father presided over. That’s not just a preference. It’s a profitable mission for Meta, and one that’s more alive than ever. After all, how do you think those viral, extremist friendly clips that get far right candidates elected actually come about, if not with some help from Big Tech?

Laís Gouveia has been a reporter at Brasil 247 since 2018. Before that, she was educational policy director at the National Student Union (União Nacional dos Estudantes/UNE) and an editor at Portal Vermelho.

This article originally ran at Brasil 247, was translated, with consent, by Panamerican Dispatch, and can be read in its original Portuguese here.

The CIA is allegedly working behind the scenes in Brazil’s election, planting stories to favor Flávio Bolsonaro and build a positive narrative about the senator.

The claims come from John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who has become something of a celebrity in recent years. Earlier this week, he took to social media to flag what he called “credible” evidence of the spy agency’s involvement in Brazil’s election.

On Tuesday, Kiriakou gave more details on his podcast.

“I heard a rumor from a former CIA colleague of mine this past weekend that the agency is actively working behind the scenes to support Bolsonaro,” he said.

“And the way they’re doing it is by planting pro-Bolsonaro stories in both the Brazilian press and the international press,” he claimed.

He offered no evidence and was careful to say he doesn’t know whether this account is true. But he argued that it fits the agency’s pattern of behavior over the years.

“There’s a long history of CIA involvement in elections abroad, controlling the media narrative,” he said.

He noted that much of the Brazilian press has swung behind Bolsonaro.

“This is despite the fact that Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency was one mistake after another,” he said.

The former agent pointed to the former president’s 27 year prison sentence, calling his conduct “incredibly corrupt.”

Kiriakou said the runoff projections don’t favor Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and suggested the right has already secured one of its biggest wins in Brazilian history.

“Lula is likely to lose the election, and I think the younger Bolsonaro will end up pardoning his father,” he predicted.

He also noted that Donald Trump has already endorsed Flávio Bolsonaro’s candidacy, acknowledging that doing so could be a “violation of international rules.”

Earlier in the week, Kiriakou wrote on social media that he met with Lula three years ago. On Tuesday, he explained that a Lula aide had reached out so the two could discuss government transparency.

According to the former agent, one topic in that conversation was police violence under Jair Bolsonaro’s government. He said he suggested that Lula confront that issue directly, and that doing so had led police to turn against Lula.

Who Is This Former Agent?

In 2013, Kiriakou pleaded guilty to revealing the identity of an undercover agent, the first case of its kind in 27 years. He had worked for the CIA from 1990 to 2004 and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison as part of a plea deal.

He admitted to disclosing to a reporter the identity of an undercover officer who had taken part in harsh interrogations of alleged Al Qaeda members held at secret CIA detention sites.

Kiriakou first drew national attention in 2007, during the George W. Bush administration, when he told ABC News in an interview that waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning, had been used on a Guantánamo detainee named Abu Zubaydah.

Then CIA Director David Petraeus issued a statement praising the plea deal with Kiriakou, even though four other charges against him were dropped. The case “represents an important victory for our agency, for our intelligence community and for our country,” Petraeus said.

It was the first time in 27 years that someone had been found guilty of revealing the identity of an undercover agent.

This article first ran in ICL Notícias, was translated by Panamerican Dispatch, and can be read in its original Portuguese here.

“Keep our city out of your reckless war talk,” said San Diego’s mayor, Todd Gloria, Monday night after President Donald Trump’s rambling speech at a rally in Nebraska included a particularly violent mention of the California city.

Gloria was among several Democratic political leaders who were incensed after Trump—moments after predicted the Republican Party would see a “tremendous victory” in the November 3 midterm elections—suggested that he would not object to an Iranian military or nuclear attack on San Diego and Los Angeles.

The president said that soaring prices for gas, groceries, and other essentials are a “small price to pay for keeping the world safe—keeping our country safe.”

Trump on Iran: Let 'em take out Los Angeles and San Diego, it's a small price to pay pic.twitter.com/Fc4BcjVDKj

— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) October 6, 2026

He warned that Iran could “take out a city,” before adding that he would “let them” attack the two deep-blue cities—home to a collective 5.2 million people, with more than 20 million residents in the surrounding areas

“Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego,” Trump said at the rally in Grand Island. “This is a very small price to pay… It’s gonna be over very soon.”

The crowd responded to Trump’s comments with laughter and cheers. The president has frequently made Democratic strongholds like Los Angeles, Chicago, and his own hometown of New York City the targets of rhetorical attacks. He has also targeted those cities with the deployment of armed federal agents as part of his mass deportation agenda.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat whose name has been floated as a potential 2028 presidential candidate, condemned Trump’s remarks as “deranged and dangerous.”

“After sending the National Guard and Marines to occupy California, Donald Trump is now saying our foreign enemies should ‘take out’ Los Angeles and San Diego,” said Newsom, who later criticized Trump’s vice president and secretary of state for not speaking out against the comments.

“The SILENCE from JD Vance and Marco Rubio today is deafening,” said the governor.

Gloria added that San Diego, which is home to major military installations, “is not collateral damage. We are not expendable. And we are never a ‘small price to pay.’”

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass accused Trump of compromising the safety of the nation’s second-largest city.

“The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives,” said Bass. “In the face of irresponsible threats, as Angelenos, we know how to stand together and protect our city.”

Jim Desmond, a Republican running for Congress in California’s 48th District, which lies in San Diego, was also quick to distance himself from the president’s comments.

Some observers claimed the president had simply been speaking in an “especially confusing style,” as journalist Daniel Dale suggested, and did not intend to suggest that the two cities could be acceptable collateral damage.

“Of course you can say it’s inappropriate regardless for the president to casually float the possibility of a city being wiped out,” he added.

Trump’s comments came days after it was reported that the Pentagon is prepared to send thousands more troops and a third aircraft carrier to the Middle East, as talks between the US and Iran remain stalled. Gas prices remain elevated, at $4.36 per gallon on average, and nearly two-thirds of respondents to an Associated Press poll in June said they disapproved of how Trump had handled the war, which he joined Israel in starting in February without congressional approval.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) had a succinct response to Trump’s remarks, referring to the constitutional amendment that allows members of a president’s Cabinet to remove him from office on the ground that they cannot fulfill the duties of the president.

“Twenty-fifth amendment NOW,” said Padilla.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva spoke on Sunday, after the release of the results of the first round of the 2026 elections. He said his campaign for a second round of the presidential race begins this Monday, October 5.

Lula will face Senator Flávio Bolsonaro in the runoff, scheduled for October 25.

In his speech, Lula stated that he intends to present to voters the differences between the two candidates’ platforms.

“Starting tomorrow, we begin a new campaign,” he said. “We will be able to show the difference between the proposals that exist for Brazil. The Brazilian people will have no doubt about choosing who will win the election.”

Lula also launched direct attacks on Flávio Bolsonaro’s political track record and cited the candidate’s past.

“He has a dark history,” Lula said. “With dark connections, with extremely serious suspicions, with ties to militia members and organized crime. All of this will become clear.”

The president mentioned Banco Master. He claimed that Flávio had a hand in the institution’s creation.

“Banco Master resulted in the greatest corruption scandal in this country and the biggest free-for-all involving politicians,” he said.

The accusations raised by Lula are part of his runoff campaign rhetoric and are expected to be a key point of contention between the two candidates in the coming weeks.

The president also argued that the race should be framed as a choice over the country’s future. He stated that his candidacy represents an opportunity to drive change in the Brazilian economy.

“We will show what has been done and what society expects to be done,” he said. “No one is better positioned than us to offer a future to Brazilian society.”

Lula further stated that Brazil needs to take a “qualitative leap” to become internationally competitive.

“I’m very good at the knockout stage”

Commenting on the first-round results, Lula referred to the fact that he had won the second Rond vote in previous presidential elections.

“It didn’t work out [this time],” he said. “You know why? Because the people like seeing me compete in the runoff.”

In a lighthearted tone, he added, “I’m very good at the knockout stage.”

The runoff will be a head-to-head contest between Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro, after neither candidate secured more than 50% of the valid votes in the first round. The vote will take place on October 25.

“More than 20 million people didn’t turn out to vote,” he said. “We are going to make an appeal: at this historic moment for Brazil. Voting is essential to determine the country’s future.”

“Bolsonaro supporters had better get ready,” he said. “Because we are going to defeat them.”

You can watch Lula’s speech below.

This article was originally published by Revista Forum. You can read the original in Portuguese, here.

Florida lawyer Jalal Shehadeh is convinced that the warrantless seizure of his cell phone by federal agents at the Newark International Airport after he returned from Palestine this September was not random.

Shehadeh, a Miami-based attorney and Palestinian rights advocate, was held for several hours for a secondary inspection and had his phone seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) after he refused to allow federal agents to search it.

“It’s just a wildly invasive thing to do to somebody with no individualized justifiable basis to do it,” Shehadeh told Truthout.

He suspects federal authorities targeted him for his activism. The lawyer is involved in a legal complaint against a federal judge in Florida over the judge’s anti-Palestinian statements.

Shehadeh is one of several Palestinian rights advocates who have been detained and had their personal devices searched by CBP while returning to the U.S. from international travel since the start of Israel’s war on Gaza in October 2023.

Other similar cases include Amir Makled, a lawyer from the Detroit area who was representing University of Michigan students involved in pro-Palestine activism, journalist Max Blumenthal, and Osama Abu Irshaid, the executive director of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP).

Jenin Younes, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), which filed a legal motion earlier this week demanding the return of Shehadeh’s phone, said CBP appears to be escalating phone searches against opponents of President Donald Trump’s agenda.

“Common sense tells us that they are targeting people who have pro-Palestine views,” Younes told Truthout.

She stressed that the searches are illegal. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects “persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Younes said the “border exception” that allows searches to ensure that no illegal items are brought into the country should not apply to phones.

Younes, a civil liberties attorney, said the authors of the Constitution would have certainly opposed giving the government blanket authority to search people’s phones without cause.

“Law enforcement can search shipping vessels coming into the Boston harbor to make sure that they don’t have contraband. That’s a totally different thing from searching the contents of people’s smartphones,” she said. “I don’t think the framers would have thought that you could read the papers of somebody coming into the country in their suitcase, and likewise, a smartphone, which has so much more personal information.”

The case of Shehadeh and other Palestinian rights supporters targeted for searches at the border has reignited the debate over the application of constitutional protections at ports of entry.

Shehadeh said that when he was stopped at Newark on September 17, CBP officers only conducted a “cursory” search on his bags because they did not appear to be interested in physical items.

“They are looking for our thoughts,” he said. “They’re looking to see what I’m thinking. They want to see who I’m messaging. They want to see what WhatsApp groups I am part of.”

The lawyer, who has Global Entry for expedited border crossing, said he was flagged by name for secondary inspection and led to a waiting room. He was asked general questions about his travels, work, and family before the agents asked to search his phone.

Shehadeh objected to allowing the officers to go through his device, citing the attorney-client privileged information on the phone. The agents kept him waiting and subjected him to another round of questioning as they took the case to a supervisor. As the clock ticked, the Florida-based lawyer missed his connecting flight to Miami.

Eventually, he was informed by an officer that CBP would take his phone and let him go. “I told them, ‘I just want to be very clear. I am not giving you permission, consent to search my phone, and I’m not giving any other arm of this agency or anybody else consent to search my phone,’” he said.

The cell phone still has not been returned.

Shehadeh told Truthout that if the goal of the episode were to deter his activism for Palestinian rights, it would not succeed.

“It will not move our advocacy work an inch. Literally, it will have no impact. If anything, it will fuel the importance of doing more of this work,” he told Truthout. “But when it comes to travel, I’m going to be much more careful about what my phone situation will be.”

The Trump administration has been cracking down on Palestinian rights activism, including through a deportation campaign targeting non-citizen students who participated in protests against the war on Gaza.

Shehadeh warned that the administration is creating a new norm of weakened constitutional rights that many people may take for granted.

“This search is a perfect example of that. Protection against search and seizure is one of those things that comes out of our Constitution that really empowers citizens to know you will not have government intrusion,” he said.

“What this administration is doing is chipping away at the rights of Americans — of all Americans. But sadly, Arabs, Muslims, and minorities tend to be the first victims of these abuses. But they’re certainly not going to be the last ones.”

Abu Irshaid of AMP said the government is turning border crossings into a “hunting ground for individuals it wishes to target” for political retaliation or to gather information about constitutional protected activity.

Abu Irshaid has sued the government, alleging that the repeated searches he has been subjected to at the airport, along with the seizure of his phone, amount to illegal discrimination.

A federal judge ruled in his favor in July, declaring that the government violated Abu Irshaid’s rights with the searches.

Some activists are pinning their hopes on a case before the Supreme Court, Anibowei v. Blanche, that could determine whether the Fourth Amendment applies to the electronic devices of U.S. citizens travelling internationally.

CBP argues that only a tiny fraction of travelers, less than one-half of one percent, are subjected to a device search. But official statistics show an uptick in such searches since Trump returned to the White House.

In 2024, federal officers inspected the devices of 47,047 travelers. The numbers increased to 55,318 last year. Of those inspections, 13,590 targeted U.S. citizens in 2025, compared to 10,541 a year earlier.

In January, CBP released a memorandum outlining its regulations and authorities around searching travelers’ personal devices. The document stressed that people at ports of entry have diminished privacy rights and that phone searches are essential “to identify and combat a wide range of illicit activities.”

A basic search, one where the officer goes through the phone manually, can be conducted “with or without suspicion.”

The bar is higher for carrying out an advanced search, which includes copying and analyzing the content of the phone through an external device. It requires “reasonable suspicion of activity in violation of the laws” enforced by CBP. But there appears to be a loophole. An advanced search can still be conducted “in the absence of individualized reasonable suspicion when there is a national security concern.”

The directive does not provide details on what constitutes a “national security concern” to enable an advanced search.

Officers can only search the device itself and may not access information stored remotely. That’s why they must disable the external connectivity of the phone, according to the memorandum.

The directive gives officers the authority to seize a device and keep it even after the traveler leaves the airport, which is what happened to Shehadeh. According to the memorandum, CBP could effectively keep his phone indefinitely. The agency is allowed to hold on to the device for a period of five days, which can be extended by 15 days and subsequently by seven days in increments without specified limits.

As of Thursday, CBP has kept Shehadeh’s phone for 14 days, meaning the agency has applied at least one extension to its hold on the device.

In response to Truthout’s request for comment, a CBP spokesperson told Truthout that the likelihood of a search at a port of entry “remains exceedingly rare” but did not answer specific questions about Shehadeh’s case, including why the agency is still holding on to his phone.

“U.S. Customs and Border Protection has statutory authority to conduct border searches of electronic devices for all persons entering or departing the United States, regardless of citizenship, to enforce laws addressing terrorism, child exploitation, drug- and human-smuggling, visa fraud, and national security threats,” the CBP spokesperson said.

In the face of the U.S.’s ever-expanding definition of “national security threats,” which now seem to include lawyers, journalists, and activists who have advocated for the rights of Palestinians, are now living in fear that border stops are being used as a form of intimidation.

“What is most disturbing is that many of these aggressive government actions target activists whose only ‘offense’ is criticizing Israel’s violations against Palestinians,” Abu Irshaid told Truthout in a statement.

---

A Personal Connection

As a reporter, I try to stay out of the stories I am telling. But my personal experience with being stopped and searched after returning to the U.S. from international travel is too relevant for this article to withhold.

After returning to Dulles International Airport outside Washington, D.C. from a trip to Lebanon in February 2025, I was detained for nearly five hours and faced similar treatment as Shehadeh.

CBP officers asked me intrusive questions relating to my work as a journalist and political leanings in my family’s hometown in Lebanon, which had been targeted by Israeli bombardment in the war.

After a brief search of my bags, a CBP officer asked me to hand my phone and unlock it. I initially refused. The federal agent handed me a piece of paper stating that CBP has the lawful ability to search electronic devices. When I highlighted that the flyer reflects CBP policy, not the Constitution, the officer threatened to seize both my phone and computer indefinitely if I didn’t hand the phone in.

CBP took the phone after pressuring me to write down its passcode and kept me waiting for around two hours before handing it back — with a disclaimer that they couldn’t “process” it because the system was down. They eventually let me go. Throughout the hours-long ordeal, the officers did not allow me to contact my family member who was waiting to pick me up at the airport.

I have traveled outside the country twice since then and have been flagged for secondary inspection on the way back each time, albeit without a device search. At the advice of press freedom experts, now I travel internationally with an alternative phone that does not contain sensitive personal or professional information.

Are top Democrats actually “shifting” on Israel, or is the PR simply getting more sophisticated? 

After the midterms wrap up and the race for the Democratic 2028 nominition for president kicks off in earnest, this will be a central question those concerned with the US role in the genocide in Gaza must grapple with clearly, honestly, and with—it turns out—a high degree of skepticism and media literacy. That’s because the forces committed to keeping the weapons flowing to Israel quickly adjusted their tactics to meet the mood of the public, and the mood of Democrats in particular. 

Last year for TRNN, I detailed the three main ways AIPAC Democrats will seek to look critical of Israel while assuring that the pro-Israel status quo remains fundamentally unchanged. Since I wrote that breakdown, a fourth talking point—and one that seems inevitable in retrospect—has emerged as a favorite of liberals who want to seem “tough on Israel,” but don’t want to upset the Israel Lobby. This line, which I documented last April, commits to “ending US aid to Israel” which, despite seeming like a meaningful break or a move left, is a policy that first emerged from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the late US Sen. Lindsey Graham. And, as I noted, it was planned out by far-right think tanks Foundation for Defence of Democracies and Heritage Foundation—specifically designed to blunt the primary argument against support for Israel. Last January, Netanyahu told the Economist that he wants to “taper off” formal US military funding. Pro-Israel lobbying organization J-Street then took this right-wing idea and  proceeded to sell the “cut off aid to Israel” line to liberals as something they could take to their constituents as evidence that they are in line with Democratic voters’ overwhelming dislike of Israel, while not changing the status quo. Indeed, as IMEU documented in their critique of the plan, the effort would actually further entrench US-Israeli military alignment. 

The US can “cut off aid to Israel” and still very much continue to arm them. The only thing that has changed in this scenario is that Israel pays for it rather than the US government, but from the perspective of those being starved and maimed in Gaza this distinction matters about as much as the color of the bombs.

Much like the Biden White House’s slippery and misleading rebranding of “ceasefire,” the “ending aid to Israel” line relies on popular misunderstanding of what the load-bearing word means, in this instance, “aid.” In colloquial or common usage, it’s a word for general support—military, diplomatic, and financial. In reality, it simply means subsidizing—e.g. paying for—Israel’s weapons. The US can “cut off aid to Israel” and still very much continue to arm them. The only thing that has changed in this scenario is that Israel pays for it rather than the US government, but from the perspective of those being starved and maimed in Gaza this distinction matters about as much as the color of the bombs. 

As predicted, this “cut off aid” statement is fast becoming the go-to line for Democrats seeking to assure their increasingly anti-Israel base without upsetting the Israel lobby or the Democratic Senate and House leadership they are aligned with. Recently, after receiving criticism for inviting in AIPAC-linked consultants to steer his campaign, Maine Democratic Senate candidate Troy Jackson released a statement calling Gaza a “genocide” and pledging to “stop funding of Israel’s military”:

Troy Jackson’s public statement yesterday expressing his commitment to end the genocide in Gaza and stop funding Israel’s military was driven by a host of supporter letters sent directly to the campaign on those issues. pic.twitter.com/FMrMBPcU2W

— Nathan Bernard (@nathanTbernard) September 26, 2026

This is a perfect example of a J-Street-curated statement that, to the untrained eye, seems critical of Israel and committed to justice for Palestine, but actually says little of substance. There’s a lot of window dressing and gesturing, but ultimately Jackson’s policy is consistent with that of Benjamin Netanyahu’s. 

Rep. Ro Khanna, who very much appears to be running for president in 2028 and making Gaza central to his pitch for progressives, is similarly muddled in his stance. Despite supporting partial and temporary embargos here and there, Khanna told Hasan Piker in July that a full arms embargo on Israel would be “probably too far.” He has instead focused on the “cutting off aid” line that emerged out of the Israeli security apparatus and found its way into “progressive” circles via J Street.  

Democratic nominee for Senate in Texas, James Talarico, likewise gave a similarly underwhelming answer when asked about his position a few weeks later. Asked about Gaza last August on The Breakfast Club Show, he refused to label it a genocide, instead deferring to the “international criminal court” (and ignoring the overwhelming consensus of human rights groups and genocide scholars). Then he promised to “condition military aid” followed by two minutes of Obama-esque vapid empathy-speak. 

That isn’t to say all Democrats are simply rebranding the status quo. It seems, despite his campaigning with central defender of the genocide Kamala Harris, Abdul El-Sayed is expressing a firm commitment to an arms embargo on Israel. Obviously, this is also the case for DSA-endorsed candidates who are not splitting hairs or letting J-Street manage their Israel policy. But these firm commitments are the exceptions. Increasingly, what we’re seeing is a squishy mix of empathy-speak, vague gesturing, highly conditional pledges to “condition aid” and other such abstractions with little in the way of firm commitments. 

The only actions Democrats have, at scale, taken to “break from Israel” is recent spattering of Congressional votes over the past year designed to signal disapproval but change nothing of substance. These bills vary between genuine, if partial, arms embargo and the aforementioned “end aid” framework endorsed by Netyanhau and Graham. It’s complicated, but worth dissecting, because it can help illustrate how much energy and effort is going into these pseudo “breaks,” namely those being pushed by Israel lobbying group J-Street. One House bill from last July sought to “end aid” to Israel. The bill had some merit as it isolated Israel as such. But, like all of these bills, it was effectively a “messaging vote” because it had zero chance of passing, and because it aligned with the Netyanhau-approved “ending aid” framework. Almost half of Democrats in Congress supported it, including long-time reliable Israel ally Nancy Pelosi. 

A few months later, we saw the slightly more substantive, but ultimately performative, partial arms embargo bills in both the House and Senate. Though different, they both involved preventing further sales of certain weapons to Israel given certain conditions. In the House, 104 Democrats backed the measure, and in the Senate, all but seven Democrats, including major Israel supporters, backed the measure. 

These votes, in effect if not intent, end up serving as little more than anti-Israel thingamajigs that liberal zionists in Congress can point to when confronted on the issue as evidence that they are not a rubber stamp for Israeli violence.

But these bills, as everyone involved in their drafting, lobbying, and counter-lobbying know, were totally DOA. They have zero chance of actually passing, much less getting a President Trump veto-proof majority. Thus—despite many activists’ best intentions—they functionally serve as little more than a mechanism for reputation laundering for liberals who’ve backed Israel’s genocide and its broader regional violence, but who can read a poll as well as anyone else. These votes, in effect if not intent, end up serving as little more than anti-Israel thingamajigs that liberal zionists in Congress can point to when confronted on the issue as evidence that they are not a rubber stamp for Israeli violence. Indeed, suspiciously enough, the Senate version last April garnered the support of staunch Israel advocate and AIPAC-money sponge Cory Booker, who grinningly met with Israeli defensive minister Yoav Gallant after Gallant was indicted by the ICC for crimes against humanity. Does anyone think for a second Booker would have backed a bill to prevent weapons sales to Israel if it had a remote chance of passing? Does anyone think his vote in support is evidence he’s “breaking from Israel”? Or is it evidence of something a bit more subtle, and sinister, which is Democrats realize they need to appear as if they’re breaking from Israel without the messiness of actually doing so? 

But if the above bills are largely superficial and performative, why would Hakeem Jeffries write a letter in opposition, one may ask? For the same reason Jeffries agreed to let the vote happen and not discipline those supporting it: it’s all part of an intramural scrimmage between zionist allies who disagree on how best to “rein in” Israel. On substance, nothing fundemental is permitted to change, and the idea of ending military support was never on the table. Jeffires and AIPAC both understand that this is a 80/20 issue against them and are allowing their members more latitude in rhetorical and ideological distance, so long as the weapons flow remains unabated which it, of course, securely remains. 

One of the more difficult tasks for an activist of good faith is being able to tell the difference between genuine, if incremental, progress, and counterinsurgency—that which appears like incremental progress but is, in fact, a move to the right with better PR.

In his urging of support for the bill earlier this year, Rep. Greg Casar, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said that “American people are crying out for an end to US tax dollars subsidizing Israel’s military.” But American people are not so much crying out for this, and certainty Palestinians aren’t, as they are an end to the genocide and occupation. It doesn’t matter if this genocide is “subsidized” by “US tax dollars” or not—the source of military funding is mostly arbitrary and inconsequential. What activists are demanding, what Democratic voters are demanding, is not a “message” bill or limited to “defensive weapons” with 18 qualifiers and carveouts, but support for a total arms embargo in principle and as a long term strategy of ending US support for the dispossession and killing of Palestinians. 

One of the more difficult tasks for an activist of good faith is being able to tell the difference between genuine, if incremental, progress, and counterinsurgency—that which appears like incremental progress but is, in fact, a move to the right with better PR. Sorting out the difference in the coming months is going to be essential to make sure we don’t just elect a whole new crop of liberals who, despite more convincing crocodile tears and more sophisticated handwringing, just go back to shipping weapons systems and scrambling the sixth fleet to defend Israel’s next “defensive war.” 

As voters concerned with the full-scale destruction of Gaza analyze the statements of politicians seeking to appear “good on Gaza” in the coming months, there are two central commitments they must attempt to pin down: (1) support for a full arms embargo without any conditional statements or tortured caveats and (2) support for the Boycott Divestment and Sanction movement, which seeks to economically isolate Israel. These are the positions that would logically follow from a belief that the country in question is committing genocide—as top progressives likely seeking the White House, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ro Khanna—said they believe. These measures—not nickel and diming “offensive” versus “defensive,” not singling out “Netanyahu,” not making vague promises to “condition aid” if Israel meets some unknown, arbitrary benchmark of humane mass killing—are the only thing that will move the needle and compel Israel to temper its exterminationist policies and plans. Only one member of Congress, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, unequivocally supports BDS, but certainly far more are capable of committing to a full arms embargo. If they cannot do even this bare minimum, and do so clearly, then the only logical conclusion one can reach is they are simply saying nice-sounding words, and checking the rhetorical box of “genocide,” so they can get elected then go back to enforcing and maintaining the genocidal status quo. 

https://www.spreaker.com/show/5958129/episodes/feed

Brazil votes this Sunday, and the Trump administration has spent months trying to tilt the outcome toward far-right presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro. Tariffs. Terrorist designations. Revoked visas. Frequent meetings with the Bolsonaro family. Taken alone, each move looks random. Put the pieces together, and a picture emerges: U.S. interference in Brazil’s 2026 elections. 

Over the last year, Trump has met frequently with members of the Bolsonaro family. In June, the State Department put two Brazilian gangs on the terrorist list. Just a few weeks later, Trump shared an article on Truth Social that said Brazil was his next big challenge. Less than a month later, in July, Trump imposed new 25% tariffs on Brazilian goods. In August, Trump revoked the U.S. visa of the Brazilian ambassador.

The Brazilian Intelligence Agency recently raised the risk of external influence and interference by the United States in Brazil’s 2026 elections to a quote, “critical level.”

This is Episode 15 of Under the Shadow, Season 2. 

Under the Shadow is an investigative narrative podcast series that walks back in time, telling the story of the past by visiting momentous places in the present. Season 2 responds in real time to the Trump administration’s onslaught on Latin America.

Follow Under the Shadow on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

Hosted by Latin America-based journalist Michael Fox.
This podcast is produced in partnership between The Real News Network and NACLA.
It is supported, in part, by Global Exchange.

VOTE by October 15: Under the Shadow has been nominated for three podcast Signal Awards. Please consider voting for Under the Shadow and The Real News:

• https://vote.signalaward.com/PublicVoting#/2026/shows/craft/best-host-documentary
• https://vote.signalaward.com/PublicVoting#/2026/individual-episodes/craft/most-innovative-audio-experience
• https://vote.signalaward.com/PublicVoting#/2026/individual-episodes/genre/activism-public-service-social-impact
• https://vote.signalaward.com/PublicVoting#/2026/shows/genre/documentary

Panamerican Dispatch

You can check out Michael Fox’s new reporting project on Brazil. 

It’s called Panamerican Dispatch. It’s a project of The Real News in partnership with Global Exchange. The website is www.panamericandispatch.org

You can also follow us on social media below

Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/padispatch.bsky.social
X x.com/PAdispatch
IG instagram.com/padispatch
Tiktok www.tiktok.com/@padispatch

Theme music by Michael Fox’s band, Monte Perdido. Monte Perdido’s 2024 album Ofrenda is available on Spotify, Deezer, Apple Music, YouTube or wherever you listen to music.

Other music from Blue Dot Sessions and Epidemic Sound.

Script editing by Heather Gies. Hosted, written, produced, mixed, and edited by Michael Fox.

Guests: 

• Alexander Main
• Maria Martha Bruno
• Igor Fuser

Resources: 

• Visit Panamerican Dispatch for all of the latest news on Brazil
• You can visit Agencia Public for their reporting and analysis about Brazil. 
• Here is Agencia Publica’s investigación, Digital Militia. 
• Many thanks to Jake Johnston from the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Maria Martha Bruno, from Agencia Publica, for taking the time to speak with me and for their excellent analysis and insight.
• You can visit CEPR’s Live Tracker on Latin America.
• You can check out Michael Fox’s Patreon.
• More background… 
• The Beginning: Monroe and migration | Under the Shadow, Episode 1
• Panama. US Invasion. | Under the Shadow, Episode 13
• The legacy of Monroe | Under the Shadow, Bonus Episode 4 

Support Under the Shadow

Please consider supporting this podcast and Michael Fox’s reporting on his Patreon account: patreon.com/mfox. There you can also see exclusive pictures, video, and interviews.

You can subscribe to Michael Fox’s new free speech podcast, The Battle for Free Speech on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Michael Fox:

Hi folks. This is your host, Michael Fox. Before I get started, I wanted to let you know that I have big news. First, this season of Under the Shadow has been nominated for three podcast Signal Awards. It’s really exciting, and you can help us by heading over to signalaward.com and voting for Under the Shadow. I’ll add direct links in the show notes that will take you straight there. Second, last week I launched a new website called Pan American Dispatch. It’s a project of the Real News. We’re translating daily articles from Portuguese and Spanish into English for a US audience. Over the next two months, we’ll be exclusively focused on covering the Brazilian elections and Trump’s attempts to sway them. That is what this entire episode is about. And if you want to get all of the news about what’s happening in real time, please consider subscribing to our Substack.

You can find us at panamericandispatch.org. We’re also on X, Blue Sky, Instagram, and TikTok. Our handle is @PAdispatch. Okay, that’s it. I hope you enjoy the show. On May 26th, 2026, a 45-year-old Brazilian senator named Flavio Bolsonado met with US President Donald Trump at the White House. Flavio is the presidential candidate for the far right in Brazil in the upcoming elections in October. This is what he had to say at the annual conservative political action committee meeting in Texas earlier this year.

Flávio Bolsonaro:

And let me look you in the eyes and tell you, we will win.

Michael Fox:

Flavio is the son and political heir of the former far right president Jair Bolsonado, a close ally of the US president. In the meeting at the Oval Office in May, Flavio Bolsonado reportedly asked Trump to designate the Brazilian drug gangs, Primero Commando de Capital and the Commando Vermelio as foreign terrorist organizations. After the meeting, Flavio spoke to the press.

He said, “I asked President Trump emphatically to designate as soon as possible the PCC and the Commando Vermelio as foreign terrorist organizations.” This might not seem like such a big deal, but it is. The United States has sometimes used that very designation as the pretext to invade or interfere in foreign countries. The US placed the Venezuelan gangs, Trende Aragua and Cartel de los Soles on the list back in 2025, and fighting those alleged terrorists was one of the excuses the United States used for invading Venezuela and kidnapping President Nicholas Maduro on January 3rd of this year. In other words, this designation carries weight.

Trump agreed to Flavio’s request. Just three days after meeting with Flavio Bolsonaro, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that those two Brazilian gangs would be added to the list of foreign terrorist organizations. Flavio responded in a letter to Rubio, thanking him for the classification and offering to place his transition team at the disposal of the White House if he’s elected. For months, the United States has been escalating the pressure on Brazil in the lead up to the presidential elections with the goal of helping to lift Flavio Bolsonaro to the top office. Just a few weeks after the State Department put the Brazilian gangs on the terrorist list, Trump shared an article on Truth Social that said Brazil was his next big challenge. Less than a month later in July, Trump imposed new 25% tariffs on Brazilian goods. In August, Trump revoked the US visa of the Brazilian ambassador.

It was an apparent tit for tat after Brazil denied visas to two US State Department officials who planned to travel to Brazil to meet with former President Jair Bolsonaro. I could go on. The point here, as many people have pointed out, is that there isn’t just one thing that Trump is doing to try and sway the vote in favor of Bolsonaro. It’s a whole combination of moves, like a jigsaw puzzle with many pieces taken alone, and it’s just a random assortment of colors and shapes. But when you start to put the pieces in place, a picture begins to emerge. See, Trump allies have won big elections across Latin America. In recent years, right-wing candidates have taken back or held onto power in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Bolivia, and Peru. And they’ve done so with the help of US President Donald Trump, who’s thrown his weight around to boost right-wing candidates, and also with the support of bot farms and shady electoral campaign practices linked to Washington and Mar-a-Lago, as we looked at in the last episode.

Donald Trump:

But on this historic day, we come together to announce a brand new military coalition to eradicate the criminal cartels plaguing our region.

Michael Fox:

Many of those countries have now joined forces in Trump’s shield of the America’s alliance, but there are a few holdouts, and Brazil is one of the most important.

Alexander Main:

The upcoming election in Brazil is really going to be extremely consequential for the entire region.

Michael Fox:

Alexander Main is the director of international policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Alexander Main:

Brazil is the country with the largest economy, biggest population in Latin America, and it’s also one of the few countries that is still holding out against US pressure, pressure to align with the Trump administration’s agenda in the region.

Michael Fox:

The first round election is on October 4th in just a couple of days, and the runoff will take place three weeks later on October 25th. Bolsonaro is facing off against the longtime workers’ party icon, Luis Ignacio Lula de Silva. He’s the current president and he’s running for reelection. I have been covering the campaigns here in Brazil in recent weeks. I’ve attended rallies for both Lula and Bolsonaro. Today, I’m going to walk you through what’s at stake, and most importantly, how Trump is exerting underhanded pressure on the country ahead of the vote. As a leak document showed last week, the Brazilian Intelligence Agency has raised the risk of external influence and interference by the United States and Brazil’s 2026 elections to a “critical level.” According to the report, there is a trend of escalating pressure on Brazil and a quote, “selective intensification and reconfiguration of the pressure exerted by the United States.” It’s a textbook example of foreign election interference today, a multifaceted jigsaw.

People are concerned, but they’re also standing up, and that’s what makes this episode so interesting. It’s happening in real time. You have Trump attempting to sway the vote, and you also have people pushing back.

Like Lula’s recent speech at the United Nations where he told the US president that Brazil will not be the backyard of any country.

Or this woman, a small farmer who I spoke with at a Lula rally in Southern Brazil. “We’re not afraid of Trump, “she said. “We know what he wants to do and we’re not going to let him. We are the resistance. We’re not afraid of him, just like Lula isn’t afraid. Lula showed us that we are not less than any country,” she said. That and so much more in a minute. This is Under the Shadow, an investigative narrative podcast series that looks at the role of the United States abroad in the past and the very present. This podcast is a co-production in partnership with The Real News and NACLA. I’m your host, Michael Fox, longtime radio reporter, editor, journalist, the producer and host of the podcast’s Brazil on Fire: Stories of Resistance and my new series, The Battle for Free Speech. I’ve spent the better part of the last 20 years in Latin America.

I’ve seen firsthand the role of the US government abroad, and most often sadly, it is not for the better. Invasions, coup, sanctions, support for authoritarian regimes. Politically and economically, the United States has cast a long shadow over Latin America for the past 200 years. It still does. This is season two of Under the Shadow Trump’s attack. Episode 15, election meddling in Brazil.

Okay, before we dive into the allegations of election interference, let me set the scene. To do that, I want to take you back to a month and a half ago to the launch of the campaigns here in Brazil. I was in Sao Paulo covering Lula’s kickoff. Some of this section of the episode is based off of reporting I did at the time for the world and the real news. It’s August 16th, 2026. Tens of thousands of supporters of President Luis Idnacio Lula de Silva are packed into May 1st stadium in Sao Paulo. Among them is Sida Maya. She’s the secretary of women’s public policies in the nearby municipality of Maua.

“This is living history,” she says. “I’m participating in a historic moment. It’s a great feeling and we’re going to elect Lula.” Next to her, her husband Valmirmaya holds back tears. “It’s emotional, “he says. Lula’s campaign chose this stadium to kick off his run for a fourth and final term as president. This is where Lula got his start. In 1979, Lula was a young leader at the ABC Medal Workers Union. He led an iconic strike and rally at this same stadium. The workers won and it marked the beginning of the end of the country’s military dictatorship. Valmir Maya was there then and he’s here now.

“We wanted what we got,” he says, “to transform Brazil into a democratic country. That was our struggle, and Lula was the expression of this.” Inside the stadium, President Lula strode onto a long stage wearing a Panama hat and a white shirt. From the bleachers, he seemed to float above the sea of supporters in red, the color of Lula’s workers’ party. Lula’s top campaign promise has always been about battling hunger. Over the years, he’s lifted millions from poverty, increased access to education, health, and infrastructure, in particular in impoverished Northeastern Brazil. Lula told the crowd that there was much work left to be done, that they had to think of the future. He said they had to invest even more in education, that he wanted to continue to develop jobs and industry for Brazil. 300 miles to the east, Lula’s challenger, Flavio Bolsonaro, launched his campaign on Copacabana Beach in his hometown of Rio de Janeiro.

“Come with me and rescue our nation,” he said, “God above everyone, Brazil above all.” Flavio Bolsonaro has attacked the left and promised to fight crime and insecurity, cut bureaucracy, promote private business and privatizations, and develop close ties with the United States. Much of his rhetoric and that of his supporters is wrapped in a religious language of good versus evil.

“You are the son of hope,” said a pastor at his campaign launch. “You are the first born. You received the legacy of representing your father, and now for everything that is sacred on the face of the earth, honor your father. “The savior trope goes over well with his evangelical supporters, an important base for Bolsonaro and other far-right politicians in Brazil, as we looked at in depth in my 2022 podcast, Brazil on Fire. Blase Narujo is a youth pastor at an evangelical church in a working class neighborhood of Sao Paulo. He joined others on the streets in mid-August to promote Bolsonaro and other far-right candidates running for local office.

He said,” I believe that Flavio Bolsonado is the only viable candidate who can beat Lula and the workers’ party. “I’m a Christian here,” he told me. “I behave as a Christian, but I’m also a political activist here on the streets to defend my beliefs,” he said. Flavio Bolsonado also has powerful support in high places, in particular, as we heard earlier from Donald Trump. If you remember, the US president is a longtime ally of Flavio’s father, Jair Bolsonado. Jair is currently on house arrest. He was first barred from running for office for spreading lies about the country’s electoral system. Last year, the Supreme Court convicted him of plotting a coup to return to power. Before his rise as the leader of Brazil’s far right, Jair Bolsonaro was a backbench congressman for decades, outlandish, but mostly obscure. And then he ran for president.

Speaker 5:

There are a few things that drew inspiration for you.

Jair Bolsonaro:

Very special guy. Turned out to be a great friend of mine.

Michael Fox:

Bolsonaro fashioned himself after Trump. In fact, in Jair Bolsonaro’s electoral campaign in 2018, international media often called him the Trump of the tropics. He and Trump met a number of times while they were both president.

Jair Bolsonaro:

And I think we can say that Brazil and the United States are as close or closer as they’ve ever been.

Michael Fox:

Last year, Trump imposed 50% tariffs on Brazil in part because of the country’s criminal trial against the former president.

Donald Trump:

They’re treating President Bolsonaro very unfairly. He’s a good man. I know him well. I negotiated with him.

Michael Fox:

And let me be honest, there are many supporters of Bolsonaro who look up to Trump and want him to use his leverage to help their candidate, Jair Bolsonaro’s son and protege Flavio Bolsonaro. On September 7th, members of the far right in Brazil hit the streets across the country to rally for Flavio. I covered the march in the southern Brazilian city of Florianopolis. There, numerous people told me how much they admired Trump and how grateful they were for his support. Adalberto Luis de Santos is marching with a blue hat with the insignia of the United States. He and his wife are draped in Brazilian flags. “We’re hoping for support from the United States,” he said. “I believe Trump can help us. All Brazilians need the support of someone from abroad. “. “Trump is really important,” another man in the march told me. “The external pressure is very important.

“. A woman in the march carrying a flag and a yellow hat told me,” Just the simple fact that Trump is in power and acts democratically in favor of freedom makes all of the difference for our people. “.

“We don’t want Brazil to turn into another Venezuela,” she said. “I’ve heard that narrative countless times in Brazil and during elections in countries across Latin America for years. It’s the ever-present boogeyman of so-called communist Venezuela, but fear of the Venezuelan fate took on an even more serious dimension after the US invasion of Caracas earlier this year. The sentiments of so many Bolsonaro supporters are a sign of just how polarized the political debate is and how much the far right in Brazil looks up to the US president. Two weeks later, I covered another rally in the same city, this one in support of President Lula.

People had a lot to say about Trump and his efforts to influence their presidential decisions. I asked them, “Are you afraid of what Trump and the United States could do during this election to try and support Bolsonaro?” “Yes, I’m really afraid of that, “said one man carrying a Lula flag. “They want to take away our sovereignty. They want to invade our lands. They want to take what is ours and let Brazil be a colony of another country.” “Of course we’re afraid, “said someone else,” but we believe that Lula is well ahead in the election and we won’t allow Trump to destroy the election. “What do you think about Trump and are you concerned that Trump might try and do something with the elections here in

Speaker 7:

Brazil? Yeah, we’ve seen a lot of his work here in Latin America that we are very scared. Venezuela, Peru, Colombia, Argentina. So we are very scared because Latin America is being contaminated by him and his work, so it’s very scary and we don’t want him in here or anything with him.

Michael Fox:

People have a lot to be concerned about. When I was in Sao Paulo in August, I sat down with Igor Fusser at a cafe near Palista Avenue. We’ve known each other for years. He’s a professor of foreign relations at Brazil’s ABC Federal University. I asked him how he sees the US actions against Brazil at this moment.

He said, “This is not just about the United States trying to remove the government of a left-wing party, the workers’ party, or a left-wing leader, which is Lula. It’s about subjecting Brazil to the policies of the United States, and Brazil being the largest country in Latin America is precisely the biggest obstacle to the American project of global dominance of the Western hemisphere,” he said. Remember, over the last year, as we’ve looked at throughout this podcast, Trump has pushed the United States into a new era of dominance over Latin America, the likes of which the region has not seen in decades. Boat strikes in the Caribbean, the US invasion of Venezuela, and the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro, the oil blockade on Cuba, and Trump throwing his weight around and meddling in elections across Latin America. It’s all justified by a renewed Monroe doctrine. Here’s Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, underlining that point.

Pete Hegseth:

President Trump has established the Trump corollary of the Monroe Doctrine, the Don Roe doctrine, and the war department is implementing it as fast as we can.

Michael Fox:

Brazil is the latest battleground. It’s playing out in the open and behind the scenes. It’s early August. The Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism is meeting in Sao Paulo. At the meeting circulating in the crowd are staff from the US Consulate in Sao Paulo, their mission to woo Brazilian journalists into conversations about the country’s electoral process and the state of “freedom of expression” in the country. This was reported by several independent journalists at the conference and then published by independent journalist Leandro DeMori, the former executive editor of The Intercept Brazil. According to Demorti, three journalists at the event confirmed the actions of the consular officials. Two journalists said they were offered assistance with US visas if they needed them, even though the meetings with the officials about the country’s elections were to be held in Sao Paulo.

Washington has leaned on two key narratives to demonize Brazil in recent years. One, that freedom of expression is under attack in Brazil because of its attempts to reign in social media disinformation, and two, that the country’s electoral system is faulty and prone to errors. Both of those claims are false. Brazil has long held certified free and fair elections, and freedom of speech is alive and well, although Brazil embraces a more inclusive harmonious definition of how the freedom of speech fits into the country’s other laws. Episode 12 of this series goes deeper into those claims and their fallout. DiMorti’s reporting about the recent journalism forum brings up more questions than answers. What were the consular officials trying to achieve? Did some journalists take the bait? If so, how will this be weaponized? We don’t have answers, but it’s another piece of the scrambled jigsaw puzzle.

Here’s another, and it’s just one example of how the meddling campaign has been building. In mid-September, less than two weeks ago, Flavio Bolsonaro’s brother, Eduardo, met with President Donald Trump at the White House. As we looked at in the last episode, Eduardo is a former congressional representative who now lives in the United States. The Brazilian Supreme Court sentenced him earlier this year to four years in prison for his actions in the US, lobbying the Trump administration to intimidate the Brazilian judiciary amid the trial against his father. According to reports, Eduardo traveled to Washington to ask Trump to impose sanctions on members of the Lula government and the Supreme Court, including Justice Alexandre Morais. If you’ve been following Brazil or my reporting, you might remember that Morais was the justice that led the trials against the dissemination of fake news in the country and also against Jair Bolsonaro.

Jair Bolsonaro:

Also developing this morning, the Trump administration placing sanctions on a Brazilian Supreme Court justice over concerns of human rights violations and politicized prosecutions.

Michael Fox:

Last year, the US sanctioned Mordice for supposedly carrying out human rights abuse, including arbitrary detention. Those sanctions were lifted four months later, but they were a thinly veiled retaliation for the trial against Bolsonaro and also Morais’s fight with ex-owner Elon Musk, which we looked at in depth in episode 12. There is no question the battle over Brazil right now is also taking place online and Silicon Valley is playing its part.

On Wednesday, September 23rd, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, took down President Lula’s Facebook page and blocked his campaign from running political ads. The platform gave no justification for the move. Lula’s workers’ party and his electoral coalition demanded answers. Lula’s campaign asked for the immediate return of the account. The campaign’s lawyers told the platform that the restriction “poses a serious risk to the candidate’s level playing field in the election.” The head of the Workers’ Party national communications team, Eden Valadaris, said they hadn’t ruled out taking the case to the superior electoral court. He wrote on X, “Brazil’s electoral contest, its campaigns, and its vote cannot be left to the mercy of the political preferences of the big tech companies whose supposed programming errors only hit and harm one campaign and one candidate.” One candidate, meaning Lula. By the next morning, the page was back up, but Lula’s electoral coalition said Meta’s actions harm the presidential campaign.

Remember that Meta was founded and is run by Mark Zuckerberg. He’s a close ally of President Donald Trump.

Jair Bolsonaro:

Thank you very, very much.

Michael Fox:

In fact, he was at Trump’s inauguration for his second term alongside the heads of Apple, Google, Amazon, and of course, Tesla and ex – CEO, Elon Musk. I want to talk about something important today because it’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram. Zuckerberg got rid of fact-checking at Meta in early 2025, just before Trump came into power last year, and that’s important because there are now fewer constraints on the spread of fake news or misinformation on the platform. In late August, Amnesty International tested this lack of guardrails in Brazil. It sent 15 different AI-generated election-related political disinformation ads to Facebook to see if the platform could discern between truth and falsehood. Meta failed to block most of them. A similar test run by the eco movement in Brazil in mid-September showed that nearly 90% of the disinformation ads it attempted to run on Meta were approved, including “AI ads depicting execution style threats against lawmakers and calling for a stop the steal style coup.” And I want to say one more thing about the role of Silicon Valley’s big tech platforms.

They are paying attention to what’s happening in Brazil. Here’s just one example. Last year, lawmakers and a congressional committee in Brazilia were discussing a bill on AI regulation. According to the fact-checking agency, Ausfatos, big tech lobbyists visited committee members more than 80 times over a five-month period. The tech company that met with members in Brazilia the most was Meta, which made more than a third of those visits.

There’s another layer to all of this, another puzzle piece if you like. In the last episode of this podcast, I took an in-depth look at the work of the Argentine political strategist, Fernando Cerimedo. Remember, Serimedo has led right-wing digital campaigns across Latin America, and he did so with the help of Washington and Trump’s former campaign manager and digital strategist, Brad Parscali. This is what he had to say earlier this year in Mar-a-Lago when he was presented an award for best Hispanic Political Consultant of the Year.

Jair Bolsonaro:

I want to say something in English. Thank you to Brad Parscale for believing me all the time and give me your technology and Tim Don for the fighting in Latin America against socialism. Thank you, Brad.

Michael Fox:

Serimedo is now in prison on charges that he tried to kill his girlfriend. According to her, he hired the hitman to silence her. Serimedo also faces charges of illicit enrichment and other crimes, but his digital campaigning and the bot farms that he’s deployed in elections up and down the hemisphere haven’t necessarily gone away, nor have his deep ties to the right in the region. Remember who presented that award to Cerimedo? It was Eduardo Bolsonaro, the brother of Flavio Bolsonaro. They reportedly have known each other for more than 15 years. Now, just this week, Washington sanctioned Bolivian Attorney General Roher Mariaka, who is prosecuting the Serimero case,

He defended his country sovereignty and vowed to continue the investigation despite the apparent attempt to intimidate him. I mention all of this to say that just because Serimedo is now in jail, it doesn’t mean that these types of digital influence campaigns heavily fueled by an inter International far right aren’t happening. As I mentioned last time, Serimedo is just one piece in a puzzle, a cog and a wheel, albeit one very important cog. But actions pushing disinformation online are still happening. We just don’t necessarily know from who or where. Here’s one example. About a week ago, the Brazilian journalistic outlet Ajencia Publica reported in conjunction with Aos Fatos that AI farms were fueling the far right agenda in the lead up to the elections. The bots had created 255 profiles and made over a thousand posts. Agencia Publica reported that the network had “achieved 58 million views, expanding the reach of posts supporting the Bolsonaro family and attacking the Supreme Court.” It’s a strategy known as astroturfing, using artificial engagement to give the impression of a real surge in grassroots support.

All of this happened over one month between August and September. According to the investigation, one of the main nodes of this AI campaign was linked to the Instagram account Leo Indio Bolsonaro. That is managed by Leonardo Rodriguez de Jesus. He is Flavio and Eduardo Bolsonaro’s cousin. He was investigated by Brazilian officials for his role in the 2023 attempted coup. A warrant for his arrest was ordered in 2025. He fled the country. He’s reportedly now in Argentina. The point is this, these campaigns are happening. We often just don’t hear about them until after the fact.

Maria Marta Bruno:

Well, I’ve been voting since 1998 and I have never seen such level of interference of foreign interference in Brazilian elections.

Michael Fox:

Maria Marta Bruno is a journalist with Agencia Publica, the outlet I mentioned earlier. If you remember, I spoke with her in the last episode as well about Serimedo.

Maria Marta Bruno:

It reminds me a lot of what I have read in history books and what I have learned on the Brazilian dictatorship and the very clear role that the US developed from 1964 to 1985 when the military dictatorship in Brazil took place. There was never since the end of the dictatorship such open intervention.

Michael Fox:

Maria says there have been a lot of headlines lately mentioning diplomatic tension between Brazil and the United States, but she says what we’re seeing goes far beyond that.

Maria Marta Bruno:

Because given the gravity and the timing of the recent facts, I would say that it constitutes a clear interference in our process.

Michael Fox:

She highlights Trump’s tariffs on Brazil both last year and this year, which she says are wrapped into defending former President Jair Bolsonaro. She points to the numerous meetings between Flavio and Eduardo Bolsonaro with top officials in Washington over the last year, the US sanctions against Supreme Court Justice Alexandre Morais and so much more. And she says there are two other big reasons why the United States is so interested in Brazil. The first is China.

Maria Marta Bruno:

The US intentions to reduce China influence in Latin America. We all know that China, it’s a key partner for Brazil and for other countries in the region.

Michael Fox:

The second is rare earth minerals, stuff like neodymium, dysprosium, or terbium. Yeah, I don’t know what they look like either, but they’re used in EV motors, green energy technologies, military equipment, and other industries. Brazil is home to somewhere between a fifth and a quarter of the total rare earth reserves in the world. It’s second only to China. In April, a US company bought up the Brazilian firm Ceja Vergi, which mines rare earth minerals in Brazil. After his meeting with Trump in May, Flavio Bolshinaro promised to work with the United States on mineral extraction. “We are the only real alternative to China for a free world,” Flavio Bolsonaro said. “Under my government, there will be long-term strategic partnership with the United States in this sector with protected investment and shared reindustrialization between the two countries. Flavio also promised that if he is elected in his first month, Brazil would join President Trump’s Shield of the America’s regional coalition.

Brazil will join the shield of the Americas together with the United States, “he said,” and countries across the region, forming a great hemispheric alliance against terrorism and organized and transnational crime. “This is Brazil’s place. It is the protagonist of the security of the Americas side by side with free and sovereign nations, he said.

Maria Marta Bruno:

And we know that the US is very interested in what we have and the reserves that we have. So it’s very significant, it’s very important, and we know that the US is following closely the development of the presidential elections here because they will certainly determine what will be the future of the diplomatic relation between US and Brazil in the upcoming years.

Michael Fox:

In the face of all of this, Brazilians are responding none louder than President Luis Idnacio Lula de Silva.

Jair Bolsonaro:

The assembly will now hear and address by his excellency, Luis Inacio Lula Da Silva, president of the Federated Republic of Brazil.

Michael Fox:

The day is September 22nd, 2026, New York City. Brazilian President Luis Idnacio Lula de Silva walks to the podium at the United Nations to kick off the 81st General Assembly meeting. Without mentioning him, Lula speaks directly to US President Donald Trump. “Brazil does not fit into anyone’s backyard,” he says. Lula denounces Trump for attacking democracy, interfering in elections and using military force to acquire material resources across Latin America. He closes his speech with a nod to the upcoming high stakes elections in Brazil. On October 4th, he says, “Millions of Brazilians go to the polls to decide their future. They will not just elect the president of the republic, state governors, and representatives of the legislative power. They will decide between democracy and denialism, between if Brazil is going to move toward a future of more opportunities or return to a past of exclusion.”. He says Brazil will have free and transparent elections as it always has with broad freedom of speech.

He denounces the spread of disinformation online, in particular coming from outside the country, which he says is an attempt to “disrupt the debate.”.

“We have a modern and robust electoral system,” he says. “We have a plural citizenship and a free press. We will not allow the enemies of democracy, both internal and external, to attack the popular will. Brazilian democracy belongs to Brazilians. Brazil will continue to be a sovereign country. No one, no one will take us away from this path, “he says. It’s Lula’s response to Trump and the world as the country faces incredibly important elections, elections that Trump and the United States have been attempting to influence. Brazilians have been vocal online and in the streets against Washington’s pressure, and recently they actually got some support from a group of lawmakers on Capitol Hill. On September 24th, just last week, Senator Bernie Sanders and 30 Democratic members of the US House of Representatives sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. They accused the Trump administration of waging a pressure campaign against Brazil ahead of the first round vote.

Illinois Congresswoman Delia Ramirez led the congressional effort. They write, “We are writing to express our grave concern regarding the administration’s coordinated effort to threaten our strategic alliance with Brazil and undermine the Western Hemisphere’s second largest democracy ahead of its upcoming presidential election in October 2026. Over the course of President Trump’s second term,” they write, “We have seen US officials engage in a sustained multifaceted campaign of interference and destabilization in Brazil. They point to the shocking 50% tariffs Trump levied on the country last year amid the country’s trial against Jair Bolsonaro. They also underscored Trump’s appointment last year of Darren Beattie as a senior advisor on Brazil issues in the State Department. Beattie, a noted far-right extremist and white supremacist,” they write, “came into this post with a clear record of public statements signaling an overt ideological commitment to undermining Brazil’s democratic institutions.” The congressional representative singled out Trump’s current tariffs, his meeting with Flavio Bolsonaro at the White House, and his designation of the Brazilian drug gangs as foreign terrorist organizations.

They write, “Given the Trump administration’s repeated military strikes in the region, justified in part by alleged foreign terrorist organization threats to US security, the designation has also fueled fears of potential US military intervention.” They recall comments from White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt last year that threatened Brazil could potentially face the United States’ military might.

US military action in Brazil isn’t likely, but it’s not out of the question. Nothing is under Trump’s Dunro doctrine. The lawmakers highlight that Brazil is just the latest in a quote, deeply troubling pattern of interference by the United States in foreign elections, including in Argentina, Honduras, and Columbia. Rather than helping defend democracy, they write, the United States is acting as an agent of interference and destabilization using diplomatic economic and political pressure in ways that risk weakening the country’s democratic institutions, undermining confidence in Brazil’s electoral process and inflicting further damage on our relationship with a strategic US ally and trading partner. They demand that Washington commit to recognizing the certified election results. Here’s the thing, the stakes are high. Remember Igor Fusser? He’s the professor I met at the Sao Paulo Cafe. He told me, “It’s clear that the United States is doing everything and will do everything possible to prevent the reelection of Lula in the next elections.” And Igor told me there was a reason for that, because if Flavio Bolsonaro wins, he will bow to Trump and the United States.

Igor says, “Brazil will become a country under the tutelage of the United States, a colony or almost a colony of the US as already happened with Argentina, Columbia, Venezuela, and many others. And if Lula is victorious in these elections, we will live a very intense period of confrontation between the two countries,” he says. And Igor has a really interesting analysis here. He says, “The US dominance over Latin America imposed by Trump is analogous to the control of the Soviet Union over the Eastern block countries during the Cold War under a Russian foreign policy imposed by Soviet leader Leonid Brezniv in 1968.” He says, “Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, all of those countries were formally independent nations with their own government, their own laws, their own representation in the United Nations, but these countries were not autonomous. They didn’t have sovereignty. Any movement that they made that clashed with the interests of the Soviet Union was repressed.

Some of them were even invaded,” he says. “So we’re living in Latin America, a Breznev doctrine, capitalist, imperialist, dictated by Donald Trump. “That is why this election is so important. Brazil is the outlier, the counterweight to the United States and the region, and the US is fighting hard to bring it to heel.

We’re going to see this all unfold not in a couple of months or weeks, but in just a few days. The first round of the election is on October 4th. Brazilians are voting for their president and vice president. They’re also voting for all of the country state governors, all 513 members of the Chamber of Deputies, two-thirds of senators, and more than a thousand state assembly seats. Lula is ahead in the race, but he appears shy of the 50% needed to win outright. If no presidential candidate wins more than half of the vote, it’ll go to a second round. There, polls show the margin between Lula and Bolsonaro even tighter, and it will undoubtedly be a tough campaign. The second round, if it’s needed, is on October 25th.

That is all for this episode of Under the Shadow. Things are going to get intense in the coming days. Please consider following our new website, Pan-American Dispatch and our social media accounts for ongoing reporting on Brazil and these elections. Some of the reporting in this episode was based off of stories I produced recently for the world and The Real News. Many thanks to those outlets for all that they do. Let me remind you that if you’re craving even more backstory here, you can always go back and listen to episode 12 of the second season of Under the Shadow about Brazil’s fight against fake news in the country and the US attempt to roll it back. And please also consider checking out my 2022 podcast about Brazil under Bolsonaro. It’s called Brazil on Fire. It’s still totally relevant today. You can find that wherever you listen.

As always, you can find me at patreon.com/mfox.

There you can also support my work, become a monthly sustainer, or sign up to stay abreast of all the latest on this podcast and my other reporting across Latin America. You can find a ton of content there exclusively also for my supporters. If you’re looking for more information, news and reporting on Trump’s onslaught, both in communities within the United States and abroad, please check out The Real News and NACLA. Both of them are publishing daily indispensable reporting. The theme music is by my band, Monte Perdido. You can find us on Spotify or wherever you stream music. This closing song playing right now is off our 2024 album, Ofrenda. I hope you check it out. Under the shadows of co-production of The Real News and NACLA, it’s produced in partnership with Global Exchange. This episode was written, researched, reported, and produced by me, Michael Fox. The script was edited by Heather Geis.

Thanks for listening. See you next time.

The close relationship between the Bolsonaro family and key figures in the international far right like Steve Bannon and U.S. President Donald Trump has been public knowledge for over eight years. In this article, tech specialist Miguel Manso looks at the state of that relationship, right now, just days before Brazil’s first-round presidential elections. – ed.

Just days before the first round of Brazil’s presidential election, a confidential report from the Brazilian Intelligence Agency (Abin) warns that the United States is influencing the country’s electoral process. Titled “Threats to the 2026 Electoral Process,” the report was sent in late August to the presidency, the Superior Electoral Court and the Justice Ministry, warning that U.S. interference has reached a “critical” level.

Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro’s campaign has become the target of legal action over claims that it benefited from paid ads and mass messaging originating in the United States.

The coalitions backing Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of the Workers’ Party and Renan Santos of the Missão party asked the Superior Electoral Court and the Supreme Federal Court to investigate the senator for economic and political abuse of power and foreign interference.

The court filings allege the following:

Foreign amplification: U.S.-based right-wing profiles and influencers, including American political figures, allegedly ran paid campaign content on X in support of Flávio Bolsonaro.

Paid partnerships: The posts, labeled “paid partnership,” cited figures from the foreign betting platform Polymarket to claim that Bolsonaro was the favorite, distorting the actual state of Brazilian polling.

Prohibited financing: The parties allege that this amounts to the use of funds from outside the official campaign structure and financed from a foreign source, both of which are strictly prohibited under Brazilian electoral law.

The lawsuits ask for the immediate removal of the posts, a Federal Police investigation, and, if the irregularities are confirmed, the loss of candidacy and ineligibility for those involved.

Trump’s Shield of the Americas and the Fernando Cerimedo Case

The attempted murder of Nadia Beller has drawn investigators toward Fernando Cerimedo and a web of other connections, including drug-trafficking flights and Bolivia’s top anti-narcotics police official, who allegedly identified the hitmen. Cerimodo is known for his work with far-right political leaders in Latin America.

On August 17, 2026, two gunmen on a motorcycle shot Nadia Beller, a Bolivian lawyer and Cerimedo’s girlfriend, outside a hotel in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia. She survived but was wounded in the neck, chest and arm.

Bolivian police have identified Colombian national Aldúbar Henry Silva Peña as the lead shooter. He fled immediately after the attack, then released a video in September 2026 admitting his role in planning the crime, though he claimed the original plan was only to “scare” Beller. He led a group of five, including four other operatives — two Colombians and two Brazilians — whose identities have not been released by investigators. All four remain at large.

Police detained Víctor Hugo C.Z. and formally charged him as an accomplice who worked directly with the gunmen. They arrested Róger Aguilera on charges of supplying the .32 caliber weapon used in the attack, and arrested Paola Andrea Vargas on charges of hiding and storing it.

Bolivian authorities arrested Argentine political consultant Fernando Cerimedo, known for his work with Trump’s MAGA movement and Beller’s former partner, at Viru Viru International Airport. Bolivia’s public prosecutor’s office accuses him of masterminding the attempted femicide.

A forensic review of Cerimedo’s phone revealed real-time messages with Erik Correa González, the Bolivian government’s head of intelligence, confirming that the shooting took place at the exact moment the two were exchanging messages. Beller has said publicly that the attack was ordered to silence her before she could expose corruption, money laundering and illicit dealings involving Cerimedo and local government officials.

Investigators found two key pieces of evidence: a text note written six days before the attack that used the phrase “La Nadia” alongside an intent to “eliminate” the victim, and a message sent at 8:54 p.m. on August 17 to a contact identified as “E.C.G.,” reading, “Brother, they just shot her.”

The investigation also dug into Cerimedo’s finances. On his phone, police found a note referring to a “virtual wallet” that had moved about $66,000 over the previous 11 months across more than 320 transfers, and a larger “pass-through wallet” that had moved $1,386,997. In searches, police seized about $400,000 in cash, along with 500,000 Bolivian bolivianos, weapons, vehicles and equipment for a “bot farm” — automated accounts used to manipulate social media and elections.

The Earthquake Caused by Survivor Nadia Beller

Beller’s allegations against her former partner are shaking the governments of Rodrigo Paz in Bolivia, Javier Milei in Argentina, José Antonio Kast in Chile, Nasry Asfura in Honduras and Colombia’s Abelardo De La Espriella, along with their ties to the Bolsonaro family. Her account has helped expose a techno-fascist network aimed at manipulating and interfering in elections in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Colombia — and even in Mexico’s upcoming election — through bot and troll farms that Cerimedo’s team ran from Argentina and Santa Cruz de la Sierra in Bolivia.

The goal, investigators say, was to install leaders who would serve U.S. and Israeli interests, backed by the Shield of the Americas alliance, promotion from the outlet La Derecha Diario, and financing from Trump and his allies channeled through Milei. Cerimedo has been described as a CIA and Mossad asset.

Fernando Cerimedo, known as the “king of bots” for the Latin American far right, is also under investigation for money laundering and alleged ties to drug trafficking. Prosecutors are trying to determine whether he was part of a network that facilitated irregular flights carrying up to 500 kilograms of cocaine per trip and returning with large amounts of cash.

Searching properties tied to Cerimedo in Bolivia, authorities seized large sums of cash and found evidence of a technical setup built to automatically create fake online accounts — commonly known as a “bot farm.”

Fernando Cerimedo’s Ties to Donald Trump, Marco Rúbio and the Bolsonaro Family

It was already known that a global network links Donald Trump’s MAGA movement with right-wing leaders across Latin America, funded through an international web of businesspeople and drug traffickers and operating through artificial intelligence manipulation and integrated data networks used for cyberattacks.

These groups organize at high-profile political events and forums, such as Mar-a-Lago and the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where strategists and data operatives share methods for digital engagement and fundraising.

Cerimedo has said in interviews that no one formally introduced him to Eduardo Bolsonaro. The two say they met by chance at Harvard University in 2010. But when news outlets asked Harvard directly, the university said it had no record that either Eduardo Bolsonaro or Fernando Gabriel Cerimedo had ever been enrolled there. Confronted with this, Cerimedo later claimed he had only taken open, non-degree classes.

As part of the Federal Police investigation into the attempted coup in Brazil, investigators found that in 2022, military officers and aides brokered Cerimedo’s ties to the hardline core of the Bolsonaro movement, producing false reports attacking the integrity of Brazil’s voting machines.

Reports based on the plea-deal testimony of Mauro Cid identify Army Col. Ângelo Denicoli as the officer who contacted Cerimedo and coordinated the technical details needed to carry out broadcasts and attacks on Brazil’s electoral system.

The Federal Police obtained electronic records showing that Cerimedo’s phone number and contact information were passed directly to Denicoli. Forensic analysis of seized phones showed that Denicoli became the main point of contact with the Argentine consultant, coordinating the materials sent to him.

Cid formally confirmed in testimony that Denicoli was the direct link between the criminal organization and Cerimedo, saying Denicoli was part of the group tasked with gathering data to support claims that the electronic voting machines had failed.

Technical evidence linked Denicoli, Cerimedo and technology entrepreneur Eder Balbino. Balbino and Denicoli compiled reports containing false arguments and data based on outdated voting-machine models, then passed the files to Cerimedo, who used them as visual material for his broadcasts.

Digital cross-referencing by the Federal Police showed that the data Cerimedo presented in his broadcasts from Argentina contained the same mathematical inconsistencies and formatting as the documents manipulated by the Liberal Party’s technical committee in Brazil. Investigators concluded that Cerimedo had not discovered the material independently, but received it from the structure Denicoli managed.

Investigators also found that Denicoli was part of what they called the Disinformation and Electoral System Attack Unit. The Federal Police traced digital records linking Denicoli directly to fake ballot-audit files stored in a public Google Drive folder belonging to Cerimedo, with Denicoli listed as the folder’s original owner and editor.

Denicoli coordinated the technical compilation of false reports with Balbino. The material was passed to Cerimedo, who used it in the “fraud livestream” broadcast from Argentina in November 2022 and amplified in Brazil by Eduardo Bolsonaro.

In a trial concluded by the Supreme Court, Denicoli received the harshest sentence among the defendants in his group: 17 years in a closed prison regime, on charges of attempting a coup, seeking the violent overthrow of Brazil’s democratic order, and participating in an armed criminal organization.

Billion-dollar Technology Infrastructure Serving Lies and Fraud

The connection between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rúbio and Argentine digital strategist Fernando Cerimedo took shape starting in 2023, with lobbyist and political consultant Damián Merlo acting as the intermediary.

Merlo, who owns the Miami-based Latin America Advisory Group, serves as a link between conservative Latin American politicians and power centers within the U.S. MAGA movement. According to filings under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, Merlo used his relationship with Viviana Bovo, a senior adviser to Rúbio, to introduce Cerimedo and his data tools directly to the office of the then senator, who is now secretary of state.

Cerimedo founded the agency Numen and the outlet La Derecha Diario, specializing in “bot farms” and algorithm manipulation to shape social media trends. In Chile, he worked on the campaign that defeated the 2022 constitutional referendum. In Brazil, he helped the Bolsonaro family spread disinformation about voting machines after the 2022 election. And in Argentina, he led the digital strategy behind Javier Milei’s election in 2023.

Brad Parscale, the top digital strategist for Donald Trump’s U.S. presidential campaigns, became Cerimedo’s business partner at the political consulting firm Numen, based in Buenos Aires.

Through that partnership, Cerimedo took over managing the Latin American operations of tools such as Campaign Nucleus and Eyes Over — data-mining and artificial intelligence platforms created or linked to Parscale. The partnership combined Parscale’s expertise in U.S. data operations with the infrastructure Cerimedo had built across Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Bolivia.

Brad Parscale, Peter Thiel and the Data Ecosystem

Brad Parscale earned the trust of the Trump family and went on to design websites for their businesses, before being chosen to lead the digital strategy for Donald Trump’s 2015 presidential campaign.

In 2016, as the campaign’s digital media director, he led a data operation called Project Alamo, directing much of the budget toward highly targeted social media ads and producing as many as 60,000 different Facebook ad variations a day.

In February 2018, Trump named Parscale campaign manager for his 2020 reelection bid.

Parscale’s ties to Big Tech and to Peter Thiel’s Palantir Technologies span strategic data cooperation, political alignment and technology supply.

Thiel, a Palantir cofounder, was one of the major Silicon Valley billionaires who directly backed and funded Trump’s 2016 campaign. Palantir builds surveillance and analytical intelligence software for governments and defense agencies.

Parscale created Campaign Nucleus, a platform meant to build a communications structure and data ecosystem. The data-mining and AI model it uses mirrors the mass-processing and information-control concepts associated with Palantir.

The ecosystem functions as an integrated chain: Thiel’s Palantir develops surveillance and data-intelligence technology, which feeds into political software such as Parscale’s Campaign Nucleus, and Parscale in turn distributes that technology across Latin America through Cerimedo’s Numen.

The Link between U.S. and Israeli Companies

These companies’ ties to Israel and its government center on two main areas: artificial intelligence for military targeting, and cyberwarfare and digital influence operations.

In January 2024, Palantir signed a direct strategic agreement with Israel’s Defense Ministry to supply advanced AI technology supporting “war-related missions.”

In July 2026, international journalistic investigations revealed that Parscale was registered as a foreign agent of Israel in the United States. The Israeli government hired Parscale’s main firm, Clock Tower X, through a $46.5 million contract to carry out a digital influence operation.

According to the reporting, the company built a network of pro-Israel propaganda websites and blogs while also producing search-optimized content designed to shape the databases artificial intelligence systems draw on.

Cerimedo’s Numen is described as the Latin American link in that network, applying Campaign Nucleus data concepts and bot infrastructure through La Derecha Diario.

The relationship is described as symbiotic: Israel provides public contracts, Palantir supplies data technology, Clock Tower X uses that funding for digital influence operations, and Numen carries out the messaging and bot infrastructure in Latin America.

The Use of Artificial Intelligence and “AI Poisoning”

The tactics have evolved from spreading disinformation on social media to manipulating institutional digital ecosystems.

Generative Engine Optimization, or GEO, is described as a technique meant to flood the internet with doctrinal texts and fake academic research centers, so that the crawlers used by systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude absorb that propaganda as factual information. As a result, when people ask artificial intelligence systems about geopolitical topics or elections, those systems can end up repeating narratives that this network planted beforehand.

The dismantling of Cerimedo’s structures in Bolivia also revealed the use of tens of thousands of automated phones running AI software designed to simulate human behavior, making it harder for social media platforms to detect and block them.

Trump’s MAGA strategists, working with Eduardo and Flávio Bolsonaro, continue trying to interfere in Brazil’s election despite Cerimedo’s arrest — evidence of a powerful alliance working jointly to manipulate and defraud the political landscape and bring Latin America under U.S. control. The question is: for how long?

This article was originally published in Brasil 247. It has been translated to English by Panamerican Dispatch and can be read in its original Portuguese, here.