Brazil pushes back on U.S. tariff arguments, with Pix, the Supreme Court, and corruption in the crosshairs

The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) says its tariff decision was based on a review that found Brazilian practices “unjustifiable and discriminatory.” Brazil’s response matters for high-risk payments because Pix is in the middle of the dispute, alongside broader questions about how the country treats foreign payment providers, platforms, and regulated financial infrastructure.

1. On Pix, the USTR said Brazil’s central bank “disfavored U.S. electronic payment service providers while favoring its national system.” Brazil countered that Pix was designed to “expand access for the population and businesses to modern, secure, and instant payment methods.”
2. Brazil also said that, even after Pix launched, credit card usage grew 150% between 2019 and 2024. In other words, the country is not presenting Pix as a replacement that crushed card payments; it is presenting it as part of a broader expansion of digital payments.
3. According to Brazil’s note, Pix’s success has attracted international interest and made the country “a global reference in instant payments.” Since 2021, 47 central banks have requested technical support from the Banco Central do Brasil to build their own instant payment systems.
4. On corruption, the USTR said Brazil has “moved further away from global standards related to combating bribery and corruption” and cited Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), where Brazil reportedly scored 35 out of 100.
5. Brazil said the U.S. ignored official information it had already submitted, as well as recent documents produced by the international bodies cited by the USTR. It also said Transparency International is not an official body recognized by several countries, and noted that in February it published a document recognizing relevant progress by Brazil in anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, and organized crime policies.

The dispute also covers the Brazilian Supreme Court’s actions against big techs, unfair treatment in tariff policy, inadequate intellectual property protection, ethanol tariffs, and deforestation. For PSPs and acquirers, the practical signal is simple: this is not just about trade language. When payments infrastructure becomes part of a tariff case, it can spill into market access, partner risk, and how foreign providers are treated by regulators and public authorities.