A U.S. District Court in Florida accepted Brazil's Advocacia‑Geral da União (AGU) as a party in a lawsuit filed by Rumble and Trump Media [1].

The ruling prevents a default judgment against Brazilian Supreme Court minister Alexandre de Moraes, ensuring that the case proceeds with legal representation for the Brazilian state. This development shifts the legal landscape of the dispute by formally integrating the Brazilian government into the proceedings.

The legal action was initiated by Rumble and Trump Media against Minister Moraes [1]. On June 23, 2026 [1], the court decided to bar the request for a default judgment, also known as *revelia*, which would have occurred if the defendant failed to respond to the summons [2].

The court's decision was based on the recognition of Brazil's legitimate interest in the matter [1]. By allowing the AGU to join the case, the court acknowledges that the actions of the minister are tied to the interests of the Brazilian state [2].

This procedural move ensures that the court will not rule against Moraes automatically due to a lack of appearance [3]. Instead, the AGU will now represent the legal interests of the state within the U.S. judicial system to address the claims brought by the media companies [1].

The lawsuit involves complex intersections of international law and freedom of speech, as Rumble and Trump Media challenge the judicial measures imposed by Moraes in Brazil [3]. The Florida court's decision to include the AGU provides a formal mechanism for the Brazilian government to defend the legal framework of its judiciary on U.S. soil [2].

“A U.S. District Court in Florida accepted Brazil's Advocacia‑Geral da União (AGU) as a party in a lawsuit.”

This ruling prevents an immediate legal victory for Rumble and Trump Media through a default judgment. By allowing the AGU to participate, the U.S. court is treating the dispute not merely as a personal conflict with a judge, but as a matter involving the sovereign interests of the Brazilian state, likely complicating the path toward a swift ruling against the minister.