A top adviser to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said the U.S. decision to classify two major Brazilian criminal groups as terrorist organizations is an unacceptable pretext for intervention.
The move signals a significant diplomatic rift between Brasília and Washington over national sovereignty and the management of internal security. By labeling these groups as terrorists, the U.S. may expand its legal authority to monitor or disrupt activities within Brazilian borders.
Celso Amorim, the chief assessor of the Special Advisory to the Presidency of the Republic, addressed the designation on Thursday. He said that public security is a fundamental theme for socioeconomic development and that organized crime is an evil that must be fought [1].
However, Amorim argued that the specific classification of the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) and Comando Vermelho (CV) as terrorist organizations is problematic. He said that such a move opens precedents for external interference in the internal affairs of Brazil [3].
According to reports, the U.S. decision to designate these groups as terrorist organizations will take effect on June 5, 2026 [4].
Amorim emphasized that security remains a national issue. He said that a "pretext for intervention is unacceptable" [2]. The Brazilian government's position suggests that while they agree on the need to combat organized crime, they oppose the legal framework that allows the U.S. to treat these gangs as global security threats, rather than domestic criminal enterprises.
The tension arises from the potential for U.S. intelligence and security agencies to operate with broader mandates if the groups are officially designated as foreign terrorist organizations. This could lead to increased surveillance or operations that Brazil views as an infringement on its sovereignty.
“Pretexto para intervenção é inaceitável.”
The U.S. designation of the PCC and CV as terrorist organizations shifts these groups from the realm of narcotics trafficking into the realm of national security. For Brazil, this is not merely a semantic change but a legal one that could justify unilateral U.S. actions or intelligence gathering within Brazilian territory, challenging the traditional boundaries of South American sovereignty.
