Trump just extorted Brazil. Why isn’t American Media covering his totalitarian abuses-of-power in his “deals” with other countries?

Foreign news organizations are a mirror to the crisis in American democracy - and highlight failures in American media coverage.

Bill Bramhall New York Daily News

Dimitris Georgopalis https://georgopalis.com/about-me/

Glen Le Lievre https://www.lelievrecartoons.com/collections/politics

Donald Trump is behaving as if he were the dictator of the world. Yes, not just as if he were the authoritarian leader of the United States, which by law he is most certainly not (yet), but which neither Congressional Republicans nor the Supreme Court is acting to enforce checks and balances. He is ordering people around - including heads of state and the top judicial and legislative authorities of sovereign countries - as if he were the dictator of the entire planet, attempting to extort other countries into doing his will.

This goes far beyond using carrots and sticks in negotiation, and often has nothing to do with U.S. interests, but only those of Trump himself, or Trump and his cronies. More often than not, mainstream U.S. media is whitewashing this with soft both-sides language that doesn’t tell the true story.

One of the latest scandalous examples is his threat to impose 50% tariffs on Brazil - which would ultimately be paid by American taxpayers, and while the U.S. has a trade SURPLUS of $7.4 billion with Brazil - if Brazil doesn’t drop corruption charges against former President Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro, of course, is facing trial for allegedly attempting to stage a coup to stop the transition of power from him to current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Sound familiar? Cough, January 6, cough. 

Da Silva and the Brazilian Government have responded forcefully, with da Silva saying that he will trigger Brazil’s reciprocity law and place retaliatory tariffs of 50% on the U.S. if Trump follows through on his threat. The Brazilian Government has also shared posts on social media appealing to the patriotism of Brazilians and defending the nation’s sovereignty, and many have said Trump’s threats are only strengthening feelings against Bolsonaro in Brazil. Daniel W. Drezner, Professor at The Fletcher School, wrote on Substack that Trump’s actions are egregiously illegal. In Brazil’s O Globo July 15, an article written by Merval Pereira is titled (translation): “Patriotism & villainy. Nothing justifies Trump’s intervention: cheap blackmail in form and expensive in consequences.” Meanwhile, Folha de São Paulo wrote: “Trump’s Crude Blackmail Won’t Work.”

On the image: Respect Brazil. The President affirms national sovereignty and says that the country won’t be controlled by anyone. Text below: President Lula spoke out on social media after the United States attempted to interfere in Brazilian politics and justice. Real the full text: 

It is relatively easier for Brazil to withstand this extortion attempt than for many smaller countries as it trades more heavily with China than the U.S., and in fact is one of the rare large countries that imports more from the U.S. than it exports, to the tune of a $7.4 billion trade SURPLUS with the U.S. in 2024. Only a handful of countries have a larger trade deficit with the U.S. than Brazil. Still, certain industries would be hit hard by a 50% tariff. On ABC, Jonathan Karl shredded attempts by National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett to claim the tariffs were a matter of national security. Compared to Brazilian headlines, many top U.S. media outlets were understated. The New York Times’s headline was: “Trump Pledges 50% Tariffs Against Brazil, Citing ‘Witch Hunt’ Against Bolsonaro” with subhead “Tensions between the United States and Brazil have suddenly burst open. Brazil’s president promised to reciprocate against President Trump’s tariffs,” but doesn’t make clear that the tensions were launched by Trump or that the case against Bolsonaro is a legitimate judicial matter. The Washington Post’s initial headline was similar: “Trump announces 50 percent tariff on Brazil, citing Bolsonaro trial” with subhead, “Trump announced a 50 percent tariff on all Brazilian goods, escalating a feud over Brazil’s prosecution of former president Jair Bolsonaro. Brazil vowed to retaliate.” Again, this leaves out the fact that this is not a legal reason for Trump to place tariffs on Brazil. The Wall Street Journal’s headline was similar: “Trump to Impose 50% Brazil Tariff, Citing Bolsonaro Trial” with subhead, “Prospective levy is highest yet in president’s flurry of letters to world leaders on trade.” None of the three outlets includes in their initial headlines any allusion to illegality, bribes, abuse of power or extortion. (The New York Times did however publish a letter from Brazil’s Att

The day after Trump made his mafia boss demand…

Two days later the New York Times editors democracy-wash abuse of power, Trump’s ignorance about tariffs and what could be impeachable offenses as “tests legal limits.”

Coverage of Trump’s attempted extortion of Brazil in support of former-President Jair Bolsonaro is covered much more clearly and directly in Brazil, calling out more clearly the ties to Trump wanting the case against Bolsonaro to be dropped.

Brazil and the investigation into Bolsonaro is far from the only place where Trump has attempted to order foreign countries around, and not even the only country where he has tried to intervene on behalf of a right-wing political figure facing criminal charges.

• As reported in Le Monde, “Trump says the US is 'not going to stand' for Netanyahu's continued prosecution on corruption charges” reporting that Trump sought to protect his ally Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu by calling for investigations for corruption to be called off. And, saying they were a “witch hunt” on Truth Social on June 29th, and saying the U.S. wouldn’t stand for it (the investigation into Netanyahu). Israel announced within hours that it would postpone the next two weeks of hearings, though it’s unclear whether and when the trial will resume, and many Israelis were not happy about the postponement.

• As reported in Le Monde, back in spring, Trump called the embezzlement conviction against French right-wing leader Marine Le Pen, which bans her from office, a “witch hunt” (notice a trend?).

• Spain’s El País called it “blackmail as foreign and trade policy” 

• Italy’s Corriere della sera has described his actions as a “more authoritarian turn” 

Some meaningful coverage of this abuse of the Oval Office in American press:

• An article from the Rachel Maddow Show highlighted that Trump regularly tries to bully other countries. Other examples include Trump threatening to double tariffs to Spain if it didn’t increase its military spending, pressing leaders in Africa and Latin America to accept deported migrants from third countries, and pushing Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy to make major concessions and cede land with valuable minerals to the U.S. in return for U.S. support against Russia.

• Columbia Professor Elizabeth N. Saunders wrote a comprehensive piece for Foreign Affairs headlined “Imperial President at Home, Emperor Abroad: American Foreign Policy in an Age of Unrestrained Executive Power.” She said Trump has the characteristics of a “personalist dictatorship.” 

To the detriment of Americans and benefit of Trump’s increasingly unchecked authoritarianism this all gets sanitized and democracy-washed by the U.S. press with the largest reach.

The euphemistic Washington Post headline on Trump’s mineral extortion on Ukraine in time of invasion and war: “Ukraine rejects initial Trump request for half its mineral wealth.”

The whitewashing Bloomberg headline on grotesque demands from African leaders: “Trump Seeks Deal with West African Leaders on Deportations.”

A scan of international media in the past six months finds headlines accusing Trump of “blackmail” or “extortion” of Ukraine’s Zelensky, in Colombia, in Jordan, in New York City with Mayor Eric Adams, of universities from Harvard to Columbia and beyond, of media outlets, of law firms; just to name a few. Mob boss rule seems the order of the day, despite it being wildly illegal - and it should be considered unconstitutional.

American newsroom leaders should take a look at what the world’s newsrooms are saying about America and ask themselves “why is our coverage so different, when our readers have the most at stake?”

When newspapers and other media outlets fail to call a “lie” a “lie,” fail to call “racism” “racism,” fail to call “abuse of power” “abuse of power”, “blackmail” “blackmail” or “extortion” “extortion” instead couching it in euphemisms and “both-sides” language, the American public is deceived and journalists and editors are not doing their job - and failing to defend reality and democracy.

---