Diplomatic tensions between the two countries remain at a peak as the US government considers new sanctions targeting a judge on Brazil’s Supreme Court.

According to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to the Financial Times (FT), the Trump administration is evaluating new measures against Justice Alexandre de Moraes, whom it sanctioned last year on human rights grounds before subsequently rescinding that decision.

Washington’s renewed focus on the magistrate threatens to widen the rift between Brazil and the US across trade and political spheres, casting a shadow over upcoming elections in Latin America’s largest nation.

A little over a year ago, De Moraes was subjected to sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused him at the time of engaging in a “repressive censorship campaign, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions,” including measures directed at former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.

Bolsonaro, an ally of Donald Trump, was sentenced last year to 27 years in prison for plotting a coup.

However, sanctions targeting the judge, his wife, and a company owned by his family were lifted in December following a meeting and phone conversations between Trump and his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

According to a source familiar with the matter who requested anonymity, US interest in De Moraes was revived partly due to a case that ignited a debate over press freedom in Brazil.

The judge authorized police raids against a journalist and two sources as part of an investigation into media coverage concerning a Supreme Court justice and his family.

De Moraes defended the action, arguing that the information in question had been illegally obtained and disclosed, thereby endangering the safety of the justice’s family.

The judge gained global prominence several years ago following a public conflict with Elon Musk, which briefly led to the billionaire’s X platform being blocked in Brazil.

Supporters say he “helped protect Brazilian democracy against a wave of misinformation.”

However, critics, including the Trump administration, view him as violating free speech rights.

“He went after the president’s supporters. Not just Elon Musk, but MAGA supporters in Brazil as well. Even if we want to build good relations with Brazil, it is clear that this man is an adversary,” said a person familiar with the US government’s thinking.

Another person stated that the reimposition of Magnitsky sanctions is “under evaluation,” noting that such sanctions entail the freezing of US-based assets and a prohibition on American companies and individuals conducting business with targeted parties.

While it remains unclear whether or when a decision will be reached, any such move would intensify an escalating retaliatory spiral between the two most populous countries in the Americas.

Tensions initially erupted more than a year ago when Trump imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil while demanding that prosecution proceedings against Bolsonaro be dropped.

That tariff was subsequently invalidated by the US Supreme Court.

A brief period of de-escalation since then has drawn to a close, with the US applying a 25% import tariff on numerous Brazilian products in July.

Last month, Brazil denied entry to two Trump envoys over concerns regarding potential interference in its upcoming October elections. Washington rejects those allegations.

Lula, who is seeking re-election for a fourth presidential term, suggested that the US might act to support his main opponent, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, the jailed former leader’s son.

The 80-year-old president has also engaged in a sharp public exchange of words with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

On Sunday, thousands of supporters gathered to welcome Lula at a stadium in Sao Bernardo do Campo, an industrial suburb of Sao Paulo, for the official launch of his election campaign.

Lula originally achieved prominence in the area during the late 1970s as a union leader heading metalworkers’ strikes.

Speaking at the venue, Lula said, “I thank the working men and women of this country who believed that someone like themselves could achieve more than someone different from them. As long as I am alive, I will not stop fighting, and I will not allow the right [to prevail].”

The United Democracy Project (UDP), the super PAC of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has directed nearly $2.5 million into a special election for the California seat formerly held by Representative Eric Swalwell, marking one of the group’s final targeted contests ahead of November.

The UDP spent approximately $2.5 million to campaign against state Senator Aisha Wahab, the favourite in the race, and to promote Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Board President Melissa Hernandez. The expenditure attracted significant attention, given that Wahab finished well ahead of Hernandez in the June special primary.

AIPAC links have also emerged as a central issue in two Democratic contests in Florida and New Hampshire, among the final states on the 2026 primary calendar. Intra-party friction over the role of money in politics and questions regarding the extent to which US support for Israel should continue remain heavyweight concerns ahead of the November elections.

“I wish that AIPAC would realise that, for better or worse, it has become a lightning rod, and that is helping less, unfortunately, not just themselves, but the cause they advocate for,” said a national Democratic strategist who has previously worked with the UDP.

An AIPAC spokesperson disputed this assessment, pointing out that more than 250 candidates backed by the group have won their primaries.

“Our community of 7 million Americans is focused on helping pro-Israel Democratic and Republican candidates win in November,” the spokesperson added.

UDP spends millions in California’s 14th District

AIPAC’s super PAC is making a multi-million-dollar expenditure in California’s 14th Congressional District, previously represented by Swalwell, who resigned following sexual assault allegations that he denied.

Wahab and Hernandez are facing off in two separate races this year. The first, taking place on Tuesday, will select a representative to complete the remainder of Swalwell’s term. The second race will be held in November for a full two-year term.

Wahab finished 26 percentage points ahead of Hernandez in the special primary. The margin in the primary for the full term was 21 percentage points in Wahab’s favour.

Despite these margins, the UDP has spent roughly $2.5 million to date to boost Hernandez and campaign against Wahab. A separate group called Bold America, which received funds from the UDP and was established by former members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, has also spent approximately $1.8 million.

Wahab opposes unconditional aid to Israel. Last year, she introduced a resolution in the California legislature calling for an end to the Israel-Hamas war.

Wahab has also described the war in Gaza as a “genocide”. Hernandez, speaking at a candidate forum this spring, declined to use the same term, though she condemned “the destruction in Gaza”.

Wahab asserted that she has been targeted due to racism and bias.

“Power brokers in Washington also have a need to control every voice on highly critical votes,” Wahab told The Hill. “I have been very clear about my stance on human rights and doing what is best for the American people.”

UDP spokesperson Patrick Dorton, in a statement to The Hill, described Wahab’s assertions as “100% absurd”. Dorton stated that the group supports members of both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Bold America did not respond to a request for comment from The Hill.

Hernandez, in a statement to The Hill, pointed to her campaign’s “thousands of supporters” and said that “no single supporter dictates her agenda”.

“My opponent wants to turn this race into a national issue, whereas the race should actually be about how best to serve the voters in the East Bay and Tri-Valley,” Hernandez said.

The spending in the race attracted particular notice after the UDP spent tens of millions of dollars earlier this month in the Michigan Senate primary to support Representative Haley Stevens, who narrowly lost to progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed.

“In many cases, as a political operative, my advice was that we shouldn’t get into this specific race, because we would become the issue itself and… we would harm the candidate we were trying to help,” said Garry South, a veteran California strategist who has worked on independent expenditure campaigns in the real estate sector.

“Frankly, I think AIPAC has reached that point,” South added.

FEC complaints surface in California race

The race has intensified in recent days. A supporter of Hernandez filed a complaint against Wahab with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

According to the complaint, Wahab’s state Senate committee gave money to a county party organisation, which then used a portion of those funds to support Wahab’s congressional campaign. The complaint alleged that external activities supporting Wahab constituted an “illegal and unreported in-kind contribution”.

Wahab told The Hill that her campaign had not received any notice from the FEC. The Alameda County Democratic Central Committee said in a statement that it was aware of the complaint but maintained that its activities complied with “federal election laws”.

“Until the FEC actually takes action, this is nothing more than a political allegation floated by our opponents,” Wahab said.

According to a report by KQED, Wahab’s campaign also plans to file a complaint with the FEC regarding a series of social media posts targeting the candidate, which Wahab characterized as defamatory.

The report stated that the complaint will request an investigation into whether the online activity was conducted in a coordinated manner to influence the election outcome and whether the activity ought to have been officially reported.

AIPAC influence debated in Florida race

The California contest is not the only election on Tuesday where AIPAC’s influence has surfaced as an issue.

Oliver Larkin, an activist and democratic socialist who is an outspoken critic of AIPAC and unconditional US aid to Israel, is running against Representative Jared Moskowitz in Florida’s redrawn 25th Congressional District.

The district, which covers parts of Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward counties, is viewed as a swing territory that could be won by either party. AIPAC is supporting Moskowitz in the race.

In an interview with The Hill, Larkin pointed to the war in Gaza and AIPAC’s support for “this deeply disastrous foreign policy”. Larkin said the group had also “supported 109 Republican insurrectionists in the 2022 midterms”.

Larkin further noted that the Israel-Hamas war, particularly its disproportionate influence on the 2024 presidential race, sits “at the centre of many struggles within the Democratic Party over the influence of money in politics”.

Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, described AIPAC as an “easy target for the far left, especially since the targeting is mutual”.

In an interview with The Hill, Soifer said that some candidates have turned debates over military aid to Israel into “politically convenient talking points”, but added that these do not resonate “everywhere”.

Moskowitz declined an invitation from the Sun Sentinel Editorial Board to participate in a joint interview with Larkin.

“I do not believe it is appropriate to share a platform with a candidate who has repeatedly embraced the support of individuals and organisations that circulate antisemitic rhetoric and hostility toward the Jewish community,” Moskowitz wrote.

Larkin, who has engaged with figures including the controversial leftist Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, acknowledged that such individuals “do not always use the most politically correct language”.

However, Larkin added: “Cherry-picking these statements to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism does a disservice to the nuanced critique articulated by individuals like Hasan Piker.”

AIPAC backing creates new divide in New Hampshire

Next month’s Senate primary in New Hampshire has also highlighted differing stances within the Democratic Party regarding AIPAC and its allies.

Karishma Manzur, a Democratic scientist, criticized Representative Chris Pappas—the favourite running to replace Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen—for taking money from special interest groups, including AIPAC.

Pappas is listed among the supported candidates on AIPAC’s website.

Manzur, who opposes unconditional aid to Israel and has described the war in Gaza as a “genocide”, said: “Any candidate or lawmaker who takes even $1 from corporations or corporate PACs is no longer a public servant; they are merely a contractor for their client.”

Pappas’s campaign maintained that Manzur exaggerated the amount of support the candidate received from AIPAC’s PAC. The campaign also stated that Pappas does not accept donations from corporate PACs and noted that he introduced a bill aimed at limiting election spending by foreign nationals.

More than 700 wealthy foreign nationals have applied for New Zealand residency under the country’s “golden visa” programme over the past 14 months, compared with just 115 applications during the previous three years.

Applicants are required to invest at least NZ$5 million in local funds, companies or charitable organisations within three years.

A further 127 people have applied under a separate programme that requires an investment of NZ$10 million in passive assets such as bonds for five years.

The surge followed a relaxation of rules governing property purchases, investment requirements and the amount of time applicants must spend in the country to qualify.

According to the Financial Times (FT), the increase in applications for the right to live, work and study indefinitely in New Zealand has coincided with a period of geopolitical uncertainty that has made the country’s security and remote location increasingly attractive.

Dozens of countries around the world, from Portugal to the US, offer preferential immigration treatment in exchange for investment or, in some cases, cash payments.

Many have had mixed experiences with such schemes. Ireland, Malta and Australia have scrapped their programmes because of insufficient demand or concerns over abuse.

In New Zealand’s case, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon hopes the visas will attract more foreign investment and help reverse a “brain drain” that threatens the country’s economic growth.

Although tourists often fall in love with New Zealand and dream of moving there, many young New Zealanders leave in search of better economic opportunities.

According to Luxon, New Zealand start-ups have already begun benefiting from the policy.

“While everyone else around the world is tightening restrictions, we’ve opened the doors and our start-ups have benefited enormously from the capital flowing in, as well as from the knowledge and technical expertise these investors have brought,” he said.

Since the programme was comprehensively overhauled in April 2025, applicants from North America, Europe and Asia have committed a combined NZ$4.8 billion, through investments of either NZ$5 million or NZ$10 million each.

That figure is comparable to the NZ$14.8 billion in foreign investment recorded during the first quarter of this year.

Lachlan Nixon, co-founder of venture capital firm Motion Capital, said the programme had become “a badge of honour in Silicon Valley”.

Data show that 277 applications have come from Americans, with Californians showing particularly strong interest in obtaining New Zealand residency.

“A massive influx of capital is coming, but what really matters is the quality of the people now investing in the New Zealand economy,” Nixon said. He added that 40% of a recent NZ$27 million fundraising round for high-growth New Zealand companies came from 30 holders of “golden visas”.

According to Luxon, companies benefiting from the programme include critical minerals firm Zethos, which appointed European steel industry veteran Francesc Rubiralta to its board.

Nixon said other companies backed under the programme include seed oil protein producer Miruku and magnesium mining company Aspiring Materials.

In the mountain town of Queenstown, a preferred destination for many applicants, locals refer to billionaires such as Peter Thiel and Anthony Malkin, whose foundation owns New York’s Empire State Building, as “the secret residents on the hills”.

Most prefer to keep their wealth and presence private. Thiel’s citizenship was inadvertently revealed during a parliamentary debate, while Malkin’s presence became public after fireworks he set off on New Year’s Eve sparked grass fires.

According to Cotality, their arrival has made Queenstown New Zealand’s most expensive property market, with a median home price of NZ$1.8 million, double the national average.

Under the visa programme’s rules, participants may purchase only residential properties worth more than NZ$5 million, a provision designed to prevent their presence from distorting the broader housing market.

“There are a lot of billionaires here. They just wear gumboots,” one property adviser said.

However, doubts remain about the programme’s benefits. Sam Stubbs, chief executive of pension fund Simplicity, said people should make “genuine investments” in the country rather than seek special treatment in exchange for “a small amount of money” invested in a venture capital fund.

“Heaven comes at a price. It’s a price we all pay,” Stubbs said.

Some applicants have also voiced concerns. Courtney Andelman, who runs a venture capital fund in Santa Barbara with her husband Jim, successfully obtained a visa last year and now visits New Zealand regularly.

“There’s something magical in the air and the water. It’s an incredibly healthy place,” Andelman said.

However, she said she wanted to settle in a smaller South Island city such as Nelson, where her investments could have a greater impact, but found very few properties worth more than NZ$5 million.

She also complained that under New Zealand’s tax rules, if her family spends more than 183 days a year in the country, their worldwide income becomes subject to New Zealand taxation.

Andelman said she loved New Zealand but expressed concern and issued an implicit warning.

“How to make every dollar achieve its highest and best use is a question we constantly ask ourselves. If New Zealand doesn’t offer the best value, we’ll go somewhere else. Every one of those dollars is mobile.”