Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
6 min of reading 
33 comments 
U.S. Companies and Associations Request Tariff Exclusions and Advocate Negotiation with Brazil, Highlighting Economic and Geopolitical Risks, Such as Greater Proximity Between Brasília and China Amid the Investigation Under Section 301 Conducted by the USTR.
Large companies and private sector associations in the United States have appealed to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) for tariff exclusions and for increased dialogue with the Brazilian government amid the investigation opened under Section 301 and the possibility of new punitive measures.
The arguments combine direct economic impact — the risk of increased product prices in the American market — and geopolitical weight, with reports that a tougher stance would push Brazil closer to China.
The official deadline for submitting comments to the USTR ended this Monday (18), and the public hearing is scheduled for September 3.
-
Ambev surprises the market with a historic beer record in Brazil, driven by premium brands, while a rival faces a decline and intensifies the sector dispute.
-
Zero fare could become the “new Bolsa Família” for buses and trains, easing the financial burden on families and injecting R$ 60.3 billion into the economy.
-
Passports will be up to 50% cheaper at Brazilian consulates abroad in June 2026.
-
Amidst the anti-fraud package for the Brazilian payment system, the Central Bank publishes a resolution that temporarily suspends sanctioning processes against banks for failures in the new Pix Special Return Mechanism, a tool for blocking and returning funds in case of scams.
Corporate Pressure for Exclusions and Negotiation
In letters sent to the USTR, companies and entities request that the White House consider specific exclusions for inputs and components from supply chains integrated with Brazil.
The evaluation is that broad tariffs, without technical exemptions, could compress margins, delay deliveries, and ultimately affect American consumers and industrial sectors.
Daimler Truck North America, a leader in the heavy and super-heavy truck market in the U.S., reported having relevant suppliers in Brazil and warned that part of them consists of American companies operating in the country.
In its statement, the automaker links the trade agenda to a strategic reading: “Taking a more aggressive stance with Brazil will strengthen its engagement with other countries as a way to counterbalance the damage caused by a harsh response from the United States. Among these risks is a broader presence of China in Brazil.”
According to the company, advancing negotiable fronts with Brasília would serve American interests better than increasing tariffs.
The National Care Products Council, which represents manufacturers of cosmetics and personal care products, also emphasized the dependence on inputs from Brazil.
According to Vice President Natalie Obermann, these materials are “essential to maintain our quality, innovation, and global competitiveness.”
The leader advocated for Washington to actively negotiate with the Lula government to reduce regulatory barriers and, if trade measures are inevitable, adopt proportional remedies that exclude cosmetics, hygiene products, and their inputs.
For the council, generalized actions restrict market access and may trigger reciprocal tariffs that penalize U.S. exporters.
Section 301: What Is Under Review
The investigation under the Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 was announced by the USTR in July and covers a set of practices attributed to Brazil that, according to Washington, could be “unjustifiable or discriminatory and burden American trade.”
The scope released by the USTR itself includes barriers in digital trade and electronic payment services, preferential tariffs granted to third parties, transparency and anti-corruption failures, and the impacts of illegal deforestation on competitiveness.
The comment period ended this Monday (18), and the public hearing is scheduled for September 3, with a possibility of continuation on the 4th.
In a broader context, the U.S. government also implemented a 50% tariff on goods from Brazil this year, which heightened bilateral tension and added costs to import chains.
This environment explains the mobilization of interested sectors to mitigate collateral effects through calibrated exclusions and direct negotiation with Brasília.
Truck and Cosmetics Supply Chains at Risk of Cost
Daimler Truck North America, which reports a base of suppliers in Brazil for parts and components, argues that potential surcharges would also impact American companies established in the country, raising the costs of trucks and logistics services in the U.S.
The company argues that, besides price, there is an effect on timeliness and predictability, critical factors for fleet operators and sectors that depend on heavy transport.
In the hygiene and beauty sector, the National Care Products Council cites Brazilian raw materials used in high-value formulations.
The entity sees a risk of losing global competitiveness if inputs become expensive due to additional tariffs.
In her communication, Natalie Obermann requests “proportional remedies” and the maintenance of a negotiation channel to resolve technical and regulatory issues with Brazil, avoiding a chain reaction of retaliatory measures that could hit American exporters.
Tropical Wood: Advocacy for Exemptions Based on Traceability
The president of Popp Forest Products, Stephen Popp, requested that products made of tropical wood with independent source verification not be affected by generalized measures.
According to him, customers in the U.S. — from sawmills to infrastructure projects — demand high-performance, durability, and sustainability materials, and disruptions could limit access to legally sourced wood.
In his statement, the businessman advocates for a total exemption for the code HTS 4407.29.02, which encompasses sawn tropical woods and other related categories.
The argument is that protecting operations with due diligence, auditing, and traceability preserves legal supply chains and prevents broad measures from benefiting informal competitors.
Brasília Reacts and Contests the Forum of Discussion
The Brazilian government formally presented its response to the USTR this Monday (18), challenging the legitimacy of the unilateral investigation under Section 301 and advocating that the issue be addressed within the World Trade Organization (WTO).
In the document, the administration denies that national policies in areas such as digital trade and the Pix payment system are discriminatory or impose burdens on U.S. trade and informs that it has requested consultations at the WTO regarding American tariffs.
Meanwhile, the USTR maintains the process timeline, with the public hearing on September 3, 2025, and proceedings for reply comments after the meeting.
The official call from the agency encouraged interested parties to submit contributions by 11:59 PM (EDT) this Monday (18), in addition to requests to participate in the hearing, demonstrating that the consultative stage was structured to encompass diverse sectors, from agribusiness to the digital economy.
Geopolitics and Business Pragmatism
In addition to the immediate cost, expressions from the American private sector invoke geopolitical effects.
The central concern is that broad tariff tightening will encourage Brazil to deepen partnerships with strategic competitors of the U.S., especially China, in sensitive areas such as industrial inputs, payment technology, and commodity supply chains.
From a business perspective, the recurring recommendation is for Washington and Brasília to seek negotiated adjustments, focusing on technical exclusions that preserve legal and critical supply chains, rather than uniform measures that increase prices and fuel cross-retaliation.
In this scenario, manufacturers of trucks, cosmetics, and importers of tropical wood argue that decisions should consider traceability, certifications, and independent verifications already adopted by Brazilian suppliers.
The assessment is that, by targeting specific conduct and identified producers, trade policies maintain pressure on irregularities without penalizing chains that comply with regulations and account for strategic inputs on the American side.
Finally, the repercussions of the next stages — including the hearing outcome and any potential measures — will be observed by industries in both countries operating in integrated chains.
With the Section 301 clock ticking, the pressing question is direct: how compatible will the pursuit of regulatory and trade coherence be with the protection of critical inputs and the containment of Chinese advances in Brazil?
Era esperada essa reação caseira, o imperador, cara de mostarda, se indispôs com o mundo, agora vamos ver como faz, sem humildade, achando que ia subjugar o mundo. É bom deixar ele espernear e, se tiver comércio garantido com outras nações, dar uma **** pra ele, pode até ser o bananinha que ele acolheu com tanto carinho.
Excelentes informações que trazem o Brasil para o seu devido lugar de um país democrático, republicano independente, autônomo Soberano e de território rico.
Os dólares Americanos, Indonésios ou Chineses, são iguais como moeda de compra…
Bem… já os nossos produtos são os nossos produtos.
Trump precisa muito mais do Brasil nesse momento, duque o Brasil precisa dele.
Afinal… nós somos acostumados com inflação, já eles ! Qualquer elevação mínima inflacionaria já é recessão.