Brazil’s government legal arm asked police and prosecutors on Thursday, 1 October, to investigate a reported US$1 million U.S. grant for groups opposed to the Supreme Federal Court. The request came three days before the presidential election.
The Office of the Attorney General of the Union (AGU) filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Police and the Prosecutor General’s Office. Prosecutors can open an inquiry or shelve the complaint. The AGU cited evidence that U.S. public funds may go to groups seeking “to delegitimise the Supreme Federal Court,” allegedly “under the alleged pretext of fighting censorship and judicial abuses.” It called the matter “especially serious in view of the Brazilian electoral process under way” and pointed to external pressure on Brazilian institutions, “which includes the application of sanctions to national authorities.”
What the Reporting Shows, and What It Doesn't
The Guardian reported the grant on Wednesday, 30 September. The award, “Countering Lawfare and Censorship in Brazil,” appeared among 43 awards worth a combined US$176.9 million from the Human Rights and Democracy Fund. The Brazil project accounts for well under 1% of the package. The State Department didn’t comment on individual grants. It said the programmes remained in “active deliberation” and would undergo “a standard and rigorous vetting process.”
The limits matter. G1 said the report named no Brazilian beneficiary and didn’t confirm that anyone had transferred money. Jornal Nacional said the State Department didn’t answer its questions. The complaint doesn’t prove that money reached anyone in Brazil, and the grant remained under review in Washington. Criticism of the Supreme Court is legal in Brazil. The AGU’s concern was foreign funding for that campaign.
If investigators prove the funding, the AGU said, they should identify those responsible and any recipients in Brazil so they can assess penalties. It warned that the case could expose “a structure of external interference” in Brazil’s internal affairs.
Jorge Messias, head of the AGU, called the report “an important alert for Brazilian sovereignty” in a post on X. “Disagreements between governments are inherent to international relations,” he wrote. “What cannot be tolerated is for foreign political interests to seek to interfere in the functioning of Brazilian institutions.” Such interests, he added, shouldn’t influence “choices that belong exclusively to the Brazilian people.” Messias is often called Brazil’s attorney general, but he isn’t the prosecutor. The AGU represents the government. Prosecutor General Paulo Gonet leads the independent public prosecution service and decides on criminal inquiries.
Washington’s Shadow Over the Campaign
U.S. President Donald Trump said Thursday he was following Brazil’s election “very closely.” He named no candidate. In September, Brazil’s intelligence agency, ABIN, flagged a risk of U.S. influence or interference in the 2026 election. President Lula and Senator Flávio Bolsonaro, described in the report as a Trump ally, are the main contenders. The episode added to existing friction with Washington, including U.S. tariffs and the 2025 sanctions on Moraes.
Foreign voices have entered the campaign from elsewhere, too. Argentina’s President Javier Milei told France’s Le Point he hoped “my friend Flávio Bolsonaro wins in October to carry out the liberal clean-up the country needs.” He again called Lula “a thief” and said Lula left prison “because of an administrative flaw.” In fact, Brazil’s Supreme Court annulled Lula’s corruption convictions in 2021, ruling that the trial court in Curitiba had no jurisdiction over the cases. Milei also complained that Moraes had blocked his visit to Jair Bolsonaro and repeated that Lula sent “30 psychologists and communicators” against him in 2023. Folha noted Milei never proved Lula financed them. His endorsement carried no formal weight in the vote.
A Debate Cancelled, a Rhetorical Brawl
Voters lost a major televised forum. TV Globo cancelled its presidential debate on October 1 after last-minute rulings by TSE minister Estela Aranha and STF minister Gilmar Mendes changed the format. The court prohibited an empty podium for Lula, ordered Renan Santos to take part and barred directed questions. Lula had already withdrawn. Senator Flávio Bolsonaro then pulled out, citing what he called censorship imposed on the event by the TSE, and urged voters to mobilise. Globo said the judicial intervention created “legal uncertainty.” The account noted that the 2018 and 2022 elections left a legacy of suspicion about judicial power.
Lula chose the Flow Podcast instead. O Dia said the interview drew 1.6 million views. Lula called Flávio a “vira-lata,” or mongrel. “He has no past, no present, no future. He never worked in his life,” Lula said, according to O Dia. Brasil de Fato quoted him saying Flávio “sent his brother to the US to speak ill of Brazil.” That brother is former congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro.
The economy offered its own signal. Brazil’s S&P Global manufacturing PMI fell to 44.8 from 46.3, its weakest reading since April 2023, more than three years ago. The Ibovespa rose 0.46% in the last session, while the real faced pressure from a firmer U.S. dollar.
Datafolha’s latest poll put Lula at 45% of valid votes and Flávio Bolsonaro at 40%. An outright victory requires more than half. A runoff is set for 25 October if no one clears that bar. Some 82% of voters called their choice final, while 45% rejected each front-runner.
Why This Matters: Two days before Brazilians vote, the country’s courts, its government lawyers and a foreign power are all part of the story. The debate cancellation means voters won’t see the leading candidates face off on Brazil’s biggest broadcaster. The AGU complaint remains unproven and puts a question to prosecutors: can public money from abroad legitimately fund campaigns against a national court? That’s a test for institutional independence, because Gonet’s office, not the government, decides whether to investigate. Meanwhile, manufacturing has hit its weakest reading in more than three years as a campaign dominated by insults and outside endorsements unfolds. Whoever wins on Sunday, or in the 25 October runoff, will inherit both the trust deficit and the economic pressure.