The Rise and Fall of U.S. Economic Influence over Brazil
"Here in the Western Hemisphere, we are committed to maintaining our independence from the encroachment of expansionist foreign powers. It has been the formal policy of our country since President Monroe that we reject the interference of foreign nations in this hemisphere and in our own affairs." (Remarks by President Trump in 2018)
Demonstration against Trump's tariffs, August 1st, 2025. In front of the US Consulate, Rio de Janeiro downtown area.
The early relationship between Brazil and the United States was shaped by a mixture of diplomatic opportunism, ideological alignment, and economic interest. A key instrument of that relationship was the Monroe Doctrine, announced in 1823, which declared that the Americas were no longer open to European colonization or intervention. While this policy meant to deter European monarchies from interfering in the newly independent republics of Latin America, it had a longer-term strategy of gradual replacement of European influence in Latin America with the United States'. In Brazil’s case, even though its independence from Portugal took the form of a constitutional monarchy rather than a republican revolution, the U.S. was the first country to recognize Brazilian independence in 1824, signaling a desire to include Brazil in its sphere of influence.
In the 19th century, Brazil remained economically tied to the British Empire, which financed infrastructure like railroads and dominated trade in commodities like coffee and sugar. The U.S., meanwhile, was a rising power looking to expand its commercial reach. The Monroe Doctrine provided a rhetorical and ideological framework for that expansion, positioning the U.S. as the guardian of freedom and independence in the Western Hemisphere. Yet in practice, it meant paving the way for U.S. economic influence. Over time, Brazil and the U.S. began aligning more closely, not only politically (as seen during WWII, when Brazil sent troops to fight alongside the Allies), but also economically. U.S. corporations entered Brazil’s energy, agriculture, and resource extraction sectors in increasing numbers by the mid-20th century.
While the Monroe Doctrine initially functioned as a warning to Europe, it evolved into a justification for U.S. regional dominance. Especially during the Cold War, the doctrine underwrote coups, economic policy enforcement, and military assistance designed to keep Latin American countries within the U.S. orbit. Brazil’s 1964 military coup had U.S. support and led to decades of dictatorship under a regime that welcomed U.S. capital and trade, especially in energy and mining sectors. This period saw the consolidation of a U.S.-dependent economic model, centered on exports of primary goods, low-cost labor, and foreign direct investment (FDI), often at the cost of economic sovereignty.
Merging Markets and Resource Integration
From the 1990s onward, under neoliberal globalization, Brazil’s economy became increasingly integrated with that of the United States. This was reinforced through policies encouraging privatization, deregulation, and trade liberalization. Brazilian agribusiness boomed with U.S. investment and exports, while major multinationals expanded their footprint, especially in oil (like Chevron), energy, and consumer goods. U.S. influence had effectively replaced European dominance in Brazil’s external relations, in line with the Monroe Doctrine’s long arc.
The result was a structural dependency – Brazil remained a commodity-exporting economy dependent on volatile international prices and external capital, particularly from the U.S. and China. With limited control over technological development or industrial policy, Brazil sees itself in a paradigm of neocolonialism through economics rather than armies.
Pro-Bolsonaro Demonstration, August 3rd, 2025. Copacabana Beach, south zone of Rio de Janeiro.
Is the Trump Era Reaffirming or Reversing the Monroe Doctrine?
With the election(s) of Donald Trump, a shift has occurred. His administration, under the banner of “America First,” began to retreat from some of the key principles of U.S. foreign economic policy. Trump imposed tariffs on Brazilian steel and aluminum, citing national sovereignty and job protection. He also reduced support for multilateral trade agreements, withdrew from global environmental commitments, and promoted economic nationalism that implicitly contradicted the free-market globalization pushed by previous U.S. administrations.
This marked a partial reversal of the Monroe Doctrine's economic logic. Instead of expanding U.S. markets abroad and integrating the Americas under U.S. leadership, Trump sought to protect U.S. industries from competition, even from allied countries like Brazil. It was an effort to reduce American dependency on foreign resources – a stark contrast to the century-long strategy of extracting them through Latin American trade.
In part, this reversal was driven by domestic political pressures. Deindustrialization in the U.S., especially in the Rust Belt, led to resentment toward free trade. Trump's base sees economic globalization as having harmed U.S. workers while enriching elites and foreign powers. Cutting ties with traditional trade partners, even at the cost of international goodwill, was framed as a path to restoring U.S. American strength.
On one hand, Trump's tariffs and retreat from free trade weakened Brazil’s export channels, especially for industrial products. The agricultural sector also faced new vulnerabilities, although China absorbed some of the trade. On the other hand, Trump's policies are forcing Brazil to reconsider its structural dependency on the U.S. This could be an opportunity for Brazil to develop more autonomy and to invest in self-sufficiency.
Breaking free from dependency is difficult, especially while China becomes a new dominant force in Brazil’s trade relations, especially in soy, iron ore, and oil. The question becomes not whether Brazil depends on the U.S., but whether it is simply switching from one hegemon to another.
Many pro-U.S. Brazilians, particularly those on the right or in business circles, paradoxically supported Trump despite his protectionist measures. This support is often ideological, coming from admiration for Trump's strongman style, anti-China stance, or conservative social values. There is also a belief among some elites that aligning with the U.S., regardless of policy inconsistency, provides geopolitical and economic stability. They may see Trump as a model for breaking ‘globalist’ constraints or strengthening national identity – even if that means accepting economic damage in the short term.
In contrast, anti-U.S. Brazilians, often on the left, oppose Trump's policies not because they sever Brazil’s dependency, but because they do so on U.S. terms, unilaterally and without offering Brazil alternatives. These critics fear that economic nationalism in the U.S. will destabilize Brazil’s export sectors, undermine the fragile capitalist balance, and weaken any remaining leverage Brazil has in global markets. Ironically, this opposition can lead to a defense of globalized trade frameworks, which also reproduce Brazil’s dependent position.
While the Monroe Doctrine was born as a rhetorical shield against European colonialism, it became a tool for American expansion. Brazil, as a relatively autonomous imperial power in the 19th century, was eventually folded into the broader U.S.-led economic order. Over two centuries, U.S. policy shaped Brazil's role in the global economy as a supplier of resources and a site of investment, often at the expense of national development.
Trump’s economic nationalism disrupted this trajectory – not by empowering Brazil, but by withdrawing the American hand. For Brazil, this creates both risk and opportunity. The collapse of old patterns may open space for greater economic sovereignty, but only if Brazilians have the vision and coordination to act on it. Without that, the vacuum left by the U.S. may simply be filled by another power, repeating the same cycle under a different flag.
Written by Mirna Wabi-Sabi
Writer and editor. Author of the books “Anarcho-Transcreation” and “Seeds and Tales.”
Photographed by Fabio Teixeira
Photojournalist winner of the King of Spain Award for International Journalism.