The United States has proposed a new 25% tariff on a wide range of imports from Brazil after concluding an investigation into Brazilian trade practices that Washington says disadvantage American businesses. The proposal follows a Section 301 investigation conducted by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), a mechanism historically used by the US to challenge what it considers unfair foreign trade policies.

The investigation examined several areas of concern, including digital trade restrictions, limitations on electronic payment services, preferential tariff structures, intellectual property protection, access to Brazil’s ethanol market, and environmental issues linked to illegal deforestation. According to the USTR, these policies collectively create obstacles for US companies seeking to compete in the Brazilian market.

Notably, the proposed tariff does not cover several strategically important Brazilian exports such as beef, coffee, rare earth materials, certain metals, and aircraft-related products. The exclusion of these categories suggests that the administration is attempting to balance trade pressure with domestic supply considerations and inflation concerns in the US market.

The latest proposal also reflects a shift from the more aggressive tariff measures imposed on Brazil during earlier phases of bilateral tensions. Previous duties had reached as high as 50% on many Brazilian products, though parts of those measures were later challenged in courts and modified through executive actions. The current proposal appears designed to establish a more legally durable framework centered on trade practices rather than broader political disputes.

For Brazil, the development comes at a time when the country has been actively seeking to diversify export markets and reduce dependence on any single trading partner. Brazilian authorities have previously rejected Washington’s allegations, arguing that their policies are consistent with domestic law and international trade rules. Brazil has also questioned the legitimacy of unilateral US trade investigations and has advocated dialogue through multilateral channels.