President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva provided President Donald Trump with a document arguing against the classification of Brazilian criminal factions as terrorists.
The move highlights a diplomatic friction point between Brazil and the U.S. regarding how to handle transnational organized crime. If the U.S. designates these groups as foreign terrorist organizations, it could fundamentally alter security cooperation and diplomatic relations between the two nations.
During a bilateral meeting in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, the 7th [1], Lula handed the document to Trump. The text contains specific arguments against labeling the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) and the Comando Vermelho (CV) as terrorist organizations [1], [2].
Brazil's government said that such a classification could lead to adverse diplomatic and security repercussions for the country [2]. The Brazilian administration views these groups as criminal enterprises rather than political or ideological terrorist entities.
Reports on the impetus for the U.S. consideration vary. Some sources said the U.S. is studying the classification following pressure from Flávio and Eduardo Bolsonaro [3]. Other reports present the potential designation as a threat from Trump that prompted Lula to deliver the counter-arguments [1].
The PCC and CV are the two largest criminal organizations in Brazil, operating extensive drug trafficking networks that span South America and reach into Europe and Africa. While their activities involve extreme violence and systemic corruption, the Brazilian government said that the legal framework for terrorism is not the appropriate tool for managing these factions [2].
“Lula handed Trump a document containing arguments against classifying the criminal factions PCC and CV as terrorist organizations.”
A U.S. terrorist designation would trigger strict sanctions and legal restrictions that could hinder Brazil's own judicial and police efforts to manage these gangs. By pushing back, the Lula administration is attempting to maintain sovereign control over its internal security narrative and prevent a shift in U.S. policy that could prioritize geopolitical pressure over collaborative law enforcement.
