.svg)
The investigation into Brazil’s trade practices, including those related to big tech and electronic payment services such as Pix, is an example of the US reacting to growing scepticism over its companies’ global dominance.
In July 2025, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced that, on President Trump’s orders, it had initiated a Section 301 investigation under the Trade Act of 1974.
This legal mechanism allows the US to respond to foreign trade practices deemed unreasonable or discriminatory and that burden or restrict US commerce.
The investigation is focused on how Brazil’s actions are affecting US companies operating in the digital space, including social media platforms and providers of digital payments.
“Evidence indicates that Brazil engages in a variety of acts, policies, and practices that may undermine the competitiveness of U.S. companies engaged in digital trade and electronic payment services,” the USTR said.
The bulletin highlighted concerns that Brazil is favouring domestic alternatives. Although it did not mention Pix explicitly, the government-backed instant payments platform has undoubtedly disrupted the retail payments ecosystem in Brazil.
In the bulletin, the regulator, Ambassador Jamieson Greer, suggested that “evidence indicates that these acts, policies, and practices may undermine the competitiveness of U.S. companies” that are engaged in digital trade and electronic payment services in Brazil.
He explained that Brazil is increasing risks and costs for US businesses by restricting their operations, reducing returns on investment, increasing regulatory burdens and favouring domestic competitors.
For example, he accused Brazil of engaging in practices that “imposes overly broad restrictions on the transfer of personal data outside Brazil”, including to the US.
“These restrictions may prevent a business from securely processing data or providing services from U.S. servers.”
Challenging US dominance
In 2014, then US President Barack Obama responded to Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region by preventing US card networks Visa and Mastercard from providing financial services in the region.
Although US allies such as the EU likely supported this action, it may have contributed to growing awareness of how dependent the rest of the world had become on the US for card payments, particularly at a time when cash use was declining.
Since then, several countries have sought to promote domestic alternatives, and projects such as Brazil’s Pix and India’s Unified Payments Interface (UPI) have revolutionised how payments are made in their respective jurisdictions, effectively challenging the dominance of the international card schemes.
The EU is pursuing similar goals by supporting private ventures such as the European Payments Initiative (EPI) and its mobile payment solution Wero, as well as the digital euro.
The UK, too, is paying greater attention to its reliance on external actors in the payments space, with the National Payments Vision (NPV) promoting solutions such as open banking and account-to-account (A2A) payments.
Opposing protectionism
The Trump administration’s challenge to Pix could be a harbinger of more consequential action elsewhere.
It appears that the US views Brazil’s Pix system as part of a broader trend towards digital sovereignty and protectionism in emerging markets.
If Brazil’s model proves successful, it could encourage other countries to replicate it – a trend that is arguably already underway with the rise of retail central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).
The US likely views developments in Brazil as a form of market distortion, with the central bank crowding out private-sector competition, particularly in the low-cost, real-time payments segment.
It would take the view that if the government is steering transactions towards Pix through mandates or incentives, it amounts to state-driven interference that undermines free-market principles.
A strong US pushback now, via the Section 301 investigation, may be intended not only to address Brazil’s specific actions but also to send a clear message to other governments: favouring domestic platforms through protectionist policies could provoke trade retaliation.
The Trump administration will likely seek to preserve the interests of US technology and financial services firms – and this investigation may be an early indication of that approach in action.
