He was absent from 56 of 71 sessions—a rate of 79 percent.
In the long arc of accountability that follows those who hold power, Brazil's Supreme Court has set April 14 as the date for Eduardo Bolsonaro — son of a former president, now a former congressman — to face questions from abroad via videoconference. Having left Brazil for the United States and lost his congressional seat through prolonged absence, he now stands at the threshold of a criminal proceeding alleging he worked to coerce American trade and immigration policy against his own country's institutions. Whether he speaks or remains silent, the moment marks a rare intersection of exile, technology, and the slow reach of justice.
- A sitting Supreme Court justice has scheduled a criminal interrogation for a man who is physically beyond Brazil's borders and no longer holds the parliamentary immunity that once shielded him.
- Eduardo Bolsonaro lost his congressional seat after missing 79% of legislative sessions in 2025 — a constitutional threshold crossed so decisively it left little room for dispute.
- Prosecutors allege he actively lobbied the US government to impose tariffs and revoke visas for Brazilian ministers and Supreme Court justices, a charge the full court unanimously agreed warranted trial.
- Because he could not be reached directly, the court resorted to public notice — a legal tool of last resort — and assigned the Public Defender's Office to represent him in the absence of private counsel.
- The April 14 videoconference cannot compel his testimony, meaning his silence itself may become the most consequential statement he makes.
O ministro Alexandre de Moraes, do Supremo Tribunal Federal, marcou para o dia 14 de abril o interrogatório de Eduardo Bolsonaro no âmbito de um processo criminal que investiga alegações de coação durante procedimentos judiciais. O ex-deputado federal, filho do ex-presidente Jair Bolsonaro, vive nos Estados Unidos há mais de um ano e não é mais parlamentar.
A audiência ocorrerá por videoconferência, e Bolsonaro não é obrigado a participar. Como não foi possível localizá-lo diretamente, Moraes determinou sua notificação por edital — mecanismo utilizado quando o réu está inacessível. Sem advogado constituído, a Defensoria Pública da União foi autorizada a assumir sua defesa.
O caso tem origem em investigações sobre as atividades de Eduardo nos Estados Unidos em suposto benefício do governo Bolsonaro: pressionar Washington a impor tarifas sobre exportações brasileiras, suspender vistos de ministros federais e bloquear a entrada de membros do STF no país. Em novembro do ano passado, o plenário do tribunal aceitou por unanimidade a denúncia da Procuradoria-Geral da República.
A perda do mandato veio ao fim de 2025, quando a Mesa Diretora da Câmara cassou seu assento por ausências excessivas. Eduardo faltou a 56 das 71 sessões deliberativas do ano — 79% do total —, ultrapassando o limite constitucional de um terço que determina a perda automática do cargo.
A audiência de 14 de abril representa um momento decisivo. Embora não possa ser obrigado a depor, o que Eduardo disser — ou deixar de dizer — deverá influenciar os rumos do processo. O uso da tecnologia de videoconferência permite que o julgamento avance apesar da distância, mas também evidencia o caráter incomum de um caso em que o réu está, na prática, fora do alcance das autoridades brasileiras.
Justice Alexandre de Moraes of Brazil's Supreme Court set April 14 as the date for Eduardo Bolsonaro to answer questions in a criminal case centered on allegations of coercion during legal proceedings. The ex-federal deputy, son of former president Jair Bolsonaro, has been living in the United States for over a year and is no longer a member of Congress after losing his seat due to chronic absences.
The interrogation will take place by videoconference, and Bolsonaro is under no obligation to participate. Before scheduling the hearing, Moraes ordered that Eduardo be notified through public notice—a legal mechanism used when a defendant cannot be located or reached directly. Since Eduardo did not respond to the notice and has not retained private legal counsel, the Supreme Court authorized the Public Defender's Office of the Union to handle his defense.
The case itself stems from an investigation into Eduardo's activities on behalf of the Brazilian government while in the United States. Prosecutors allege he worked to pressure the American government into imposing tariffs on Brazilian exports, suspending visas for federal ministers, and blocking visas for members of the Supreme Court. In November of last year, the full court unanimously accepted the charges filed by the Attorney General's Office, moving the case into the trial phase.
Eduardo's loss of his congressional mandate came at the end of 2025, when the Chamber of Deputies' leadership board voted to strip him of his seat. The grounds were straightforward: he had missed more than one-third of the chamber's deliberative sessions, a threshold that triggers automatic removal under the Constitution. The numbers were stark—he was absent from 56 of the 71 sessions held in 2025, a rate of 79 percent. His absence from Congress had been a direct consequence of his presence in the United States, where he has remained since leaving Brazil.
The April 14 hearing represents a critical moment in the case. Though Bolsonaro cannot be compelled to testify, his answers—or his silence—will likely shape how the court proceeds. The use of videoconference technology allows the proceeding to move forward despite his location abroad, though it also underscores the unusual nature of a case in which a defendant is physically beyond the reach of Brazilian authorities. What happens next depends partly on whether Eduardo chooses to participate and what he chooses to say.
Citações Notáveis
He was absent from 56 of the 71 sessions realized in 2025, the equivalent to 79% of the sessions.— Chamber of Deputies records
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does it matter that he's in the United States rather than Brazil?
Because it changes everything about how the court can actually reach him. They can't serve him papers in person, can't compel his appearance the way they normally would. The videoconference is a workaround, but it's also an acknowledgment that he's beyond their immediate control.
If he doesn't have to show up, what's the point of scheduling the hearing?
It creates a record. It shows the court made a good-faith effort to hear from him directly. And if he refuses, that refusal itself becomes evidence—it can be used against him in the court's reasoning.
The allegations involve his work with the U.S. government. Is he accused of acting as a foreign agent?
Not exactly in those terms. The charge is coercion during legal proceedings—that he used his access and influence to pressure the American government into actions that would harm Brazil's interests. It's about abuse of power, not espionage.
Why did he lose his seat in Congress?
Simple math. He stopped showing up. Missing 79 percent of sessions violated the constitutional threshold, so the Chamber had no choice but to remove him. It was automatic, not a political vote.
Could he have stayed in Congress if he'd come back to Brazil?
Theoretically, yes. But he didn't. His choice to remain in the United States meant he couldn't fulfill his duties as a deputy, so he lost the position. The two things are connected.