Brazil formally requested consultations with the US at the World Trade Organization (WTO) on July 27, escalating a dispute over new US tariffs that Brasília says breach international trade rules, according to a statement from the Brazilian foreign ministry.

The move by the ministry, also known as Itamaraty, marks the first procedural step in a WTO challenge against two measures imposed by Washington under President Donald Trump that together push duties on some Brazilian goods as high as 37.5%.

It follows weeks of diplomatic friction between the two countries over trade policy.

The dispute centres on a pair of measures introduced by the US Trade Representative under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. The first, a 25% surcharge, followed a US investigation into Brazilian trade practices deemed unfair.

The second, an additional 12.5%, was applied over what Washington called failures to prevent imports of goods made with forced labour, affecting Brazil alongside dozens of other economies.

According to figures from Brazil's Ministry of Development, Industry, Trade and Services cited by Estadão, the combined measures touch 23.1% of Brazilian exports to the US market. Products subject to both surcharges — including machinery, various types of timber, fats and oils, footwear, furniture and clothing — face the full 37.5% rate and account for 16.5% of Brazil's export basket to the US.

A further slice of goods, among them sugar, faces only the 25% tariff, while items such as stone and gypsum products, minerals, essential oils and fish are hit solely by the 12.5% surcharge, government data show.

In its statement, Itamaraty said Washington's measures were "unjustified and incompatible with US obligations" under the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and WTO dispute settlement rules.

Brazilian officials briefed on the matter said the formal complaint was intended chiefly to register the government's objection, even though the WTO's capacity to enforce a ruling is limited.

The practical impact of the case may prove limited. As Folha de S. Paulo reported, WTO dispute rulings have not been binding on member states since 2019, after Washington blocked appointments to the organisation's Appellate Body, leaving it unable to hear appeals.

In building its case for the tariffs, the USTR had pointed to Brazilian policies on digital commerce and payment services, preferential tariff arrangements, anti-corruption enforcement, patent processing, market access for ethanol and the handling of illegal deforestation, arguing these created unfair conditions and legal uncertainty for American firms, CNN Brasil reported.

Brazil's Congress in 2025 approved a Reciprocity Law that would allow the government to impose retaliatory trade measures, and officials have said its use is under study. Vice President Geraldo Alckmin said last week, however, that the government did not intend to retaliate against Washington despite mounting criticism of the tariffs at home, according to Folha de S. Paulo.

Diplomats close to the process, cited by Estadão, said Brasília is treading carefully to avoid destabilising the domestic market while weighing how the reciprocity law might eventually be applied.

Some officials are said to favour delaying any retaliatory step until after next year's elections, wary of handing a political opening to Senator Flávio Bolsonaro, a son of former president Jair Bolsonaro who will face President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva as the right-wing candidate in the October presidential election.

Brazil launched a separate WTO challenge last year over a 50% US tariff imposed on certain Brazilian goods, a measure later reversed, which Washington justified under Section 301. The dispute unfolded against a backdrop of political friction, with Trump publicly branding the criminal trial of Jair Bolsonaro — who was eventually sentenced to 27 years for his role in the 2023 coup attempt — a "witch hunt."

That procedure was met by US arguments that the matter concerned national security and therefore fell outside the WTO's remit.

However, officials in Lula's administration believe this new complaint, covering different measures, cannot be dismissed on the same grounds, Folha de São Paulo reported.

Commentators have also urged Brazil to look beyond the immediate dispute. Writing for Valor, columnist Marcos Jank argued that Brazil needs to repair strained diplomatic ties with Washington in order to widen the list of tariff exceptions, while simultaneously pursuing new export markets to reduce its reliance on the US.

For now, the WTO consultation request opens a formal window for talks between Brasília and Washington aimed at resolving the dispute, though neither government has signalled a swift resolution is likely.

Should consultations fail, Brazil could eventually seek a WTO panel ruling, though enforcement would remain constrained by the organisation's stalled appeals mechanism — leaving diplomacy, rather than litigation, as the more immediate avenue both sides appear inclined to test.