U.S. Treasury Removes Sanctions on Brazilian Justice Alexandre de Moraes

The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control removed Justice Alexandre de Moraes from its sanctions list on Dec. 12, 2025, closing a fraught chapter in bilateral ties that had placed Brazil and the United States at odds over the prosecution of former president Jair Bolsonaro. The delisting, which appears to also include his wife, came amid efforts by both capitals to repair relations strained by high profile legal and political disputes.

The original designation had invoked the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, accusing de Moraes of using his judicial authority to permit arbitrary pretrial detentions and to suppress freedom of expression. In its public statement at the time, the Treasury quoted Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent saying, “Alexandre de Moraes has taken it upon himself to be judge and jury in an unlawful witch hunt against U.S. and Brazilian citizens and companies,” and accusing him of “an oppressive campaign of censorship, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions, including against former President Jair Bolsonaro.”

De Moraes, who was appointed to Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court in 2017 and who had by late 2025 assumed a leading role on the court, called the initial use of the Global Magnitsky Act against him “illegal and regrettable.” After the removal he welcomed the action, saying “truth prevailed,” a succinct verdict that underscores the polarizing nature of his career on the bench.

The delisting was contextualized by developments in Brazil’s domestic politics, notably the passage of an amnesty measure that has been linked to the removals, though full details of that legislation have not been disclosed publicly. The timing and framing of the decision suggest it formed part of a broader diplomatic recalibration. U.S. and Brazilian officials have been working to smooth relations that had been strained by prosecutions and by divergent views on the scope of judicial power and civil liberties.

International human rights advocates and legal experts have grappled with competing imperatives in the case. The Treasury’s earlier use of the Global Magnitsky framework signaled concern that judicial actions in Brazil had crossed into human rights violations, while defenders of the judiciary argued that Brazilian courts were responding to threats to democratic order and public safety. The removal reduces the immediate legal and diplomatic friction but leaves unresolved questions about accountability, the separation of powers, and the appropriate international response to domestic judicial conduct.

Legal scholars say the episode will reverberate beyond Brazil and the United States because it tests how human rights tools are used against high ranking judicial officials and how their application affects bilateral cooperation. For Brasília there is the challenge of balancing domestic demands for judicial independence with international scrutiny. For Washington there is the question of how sanctions serve as a foreign policy lever when applied to judicial figures in democratic partners.

With both sides signaling a desire to move forward, attention will shift to whether Brazil clarifies the legislative steps surrounding the amnesty and whether U.S. authorities set any new benchmarks for engagement. The case of Alexandre de Moraes is likely to remain a touchstone in debates over law, politics, and transnational pressure on domestic institutions.