The United States is considering designating the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) and Comando Vermelho (CV) as terrorist organizations [1].
This potential move could fundamentally reshape bilateral relations between Washington and Brasília. While U.S. officials view the designation as a tool to combat transnational organized crime, Brazilian officials fear the move would create diplomatic fallout and political risks for the current administration [2, 3].
The issue came to a head on May 7, 2026 [1], during a scheduled meeting in Washington between Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Donald Trump. Despite the tension surrounding the topic, Lula said he did not discuss the possible classification of Brazilian criminal organizations as terrorist groups during the meeting [4].
On the same day, May 7, 2026, U.S. Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio [2]. The lawmakers said that designating the PCC and CV as terrorist organizations could negatively affect the relationship between the two nations [2, 5].
U.S. officials have framed the proposed designation as part of a broader effort to target the financial and operational networks of organized crime that cross international borders [2, 3]. However, the Brazilian government has sought to prevent this classification, viewing it as a potential political liability [3].
The PCC and CV are two of the most powerful criminal organizations in Brazil, known for controlling drug trafficking routes and exerting influence within the prison system [1]. A terrorist designation would grant the U.S. government expanded powers to freeze assets, and prosecute individuals linked to these groups under counterterrorism laws.
“The United States is considering designating the PCC and CV as terrorist organizations”
A terrorist designation would shift the U.S. approach from a law-enforcement cooperation model to a national security framework. This could lead to more aggressive sanctions and financial freezes, but it also risks alienating the Brazilian government by implying that the state cannot control its own internal security threats.
