Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) won the presidential re-election on Sunday (25) and secured a fourth presidential term. The signal is one of continuity in Brazilian foreign policy. The state of power relations on the international stage, however, is what must impose major challenges on the re-elected government.
The “active Trumpism” should be the main disruptive element of Lula’s next term. The PT member, however, has faced difficulties coming from Washington through a discourse of defending national sovereignty.
The assessment comes from Paulo Roberto de Almeida, who led the Institute for Research in International Relations (Ipri) and served at the embassies in Bern, Belgrade and Paris, in addition to having been Minister-Counselor at the Embassy in Washington (1999-2003) and Special Adviser to the Presidency of the Republic’s Nuclear of Strategic Affairs (2003-2007).
Almeida’s hypothesis is that Brazil should not have to pick a side in the dispute between the United States and Beijing. This approach aligns with Brazil’s own history of positioning on the international stage: as a middle power, the country has never been an explicit adherent to any bloc of power, being more known for its ability to move between governments and diverse countries, including major powers.
“We had relations with the United States as the main economic, commercial, technological and military partner. China has been the main trading partner for more than 15 years and generates trade surpluses that are absolutely significant for Brazil,“ explains Almeida. “The Itamaraty will try to reconcile diplomatic standards, which has been ongoing for decades,” says the diplomat.
Trump and the Grammar of Imposition
The main difficulty for Lula’s fourth government, on the international plane, will have less to do with the government itself and will be more linked to Washington. Since his first arrival at the White House in 2017, and with even more force on his return in 2025, the Republican has undermined the foundations of the balance of power, with effects on the Western world itself. The United States today speaks little of strategic partnership, instead betting on a more intimidating approach.
An example of this was the imposition of tariffs on Brazilian products in August 2025, the labeling of Brazilian criminal factions as “narco-terrorists” and a series of other impositions.
Brazilian diplomacy, in any case, managed to promote meetings between the two leaders and contribute to the continuity of relations in a pattern already known. But the climate of threat always seemed permanent.
Ukraine and Venezuela
Regarding the Russia-Ukraine war, Almeida assesses that Brazil has failed since the Jair Bolsonaro government: it condemned the Russian invasion venture, “but in very muddled, very vague terms.” Regarding Lula, the fact is that the PT member, according to the diplomat, is personally sympathetic to President Vladimir Putin.
In South America, Lula will have to deal with a continent more openly hostile, thanks to the various right-wing and far-right governments. There are difficulties in sight regarding regional integration, whose agenda has always been dear to the PT. “Latin America has changed, ceased to be left-wing, becoming centrist and even right-wing,” contextualizes Almeida.
