The most serious incidents cannot be reduced to a simple list of events. In Maranhão, equipment seized from a journalist made it possible to identify a source who was subsequently subjected to a search and seizure operation. In Alagoas, the courts ordered the removal of a print edition that had already been distributed.
These episodes, however, coexisted with decisions in the opposite direction. During the period under review, the STF overturned some of the most intrusive measures issued by lower courts, including those involving Rede Gazeta (ES) and Agência Aos Fatos (SP). The overall picture therefore does not support describing the judiciary’s actions against the press as uniform, but it does reveal an equally troubling problem: the uneven application of established constitutional guarantees. In practice, broad provisional decisions can restrict journalistic activity and produce immediate effects—sometimes difficult to reverse—before intervention by higher courts.
Outside the major urban centers, the situation revealed another dimension of growing vulnerability. Serious cases were recorded in Maranhão, Amazonas, Pará, Acre, Rondônia, Alagoas, and Mato Grosso do Sul, as well as in smaller cities in other regions. Although the data do not support a finding of a proportionally higher incidence of attacks in the North, Northeast, and Central-West regions, they do reveal significant incidents in areas where journalists and newsrooms often operate with more limited legal, financial, and security resources and in direct contact with public officials, business leaders, and political groups that are the subject of their coverage.
Artificial intelligence added another layer of complexity. Technology became legitimately integrated into the day-to-day production of political campaigns, but it also reduced the cost and time required to create fake images, audio, and videos. The challenge for journalists, platforms, and the Electoral Court became how to combat disinformation without turning that need into a generalized restriction on criticism, satire, investigative reporting, and the circulation of legitimate information.
Three episodes illustrate the seriousness of interference with journalism.
In the first case, involving journalist Luís Pablo Conceição Almeida, one of the period’s most serious institutional episodes occurred, directly affecting the constitutional guarantee of source confidentiality. On March 10, acting on an order from STF Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the Federal Police searched his home and seized work equipment as part of an investigation related to reports about the alleged use of official vehicles belonging to the Maranhão Court of Justice by relatives of Justice Flávio Dino.
Information obtained from the equipment made it possible to identify Raimundo Cutrim, former Secretary of Legislative Affairs of Maranhão, as one of the journalist’s sources. In August, Moraes authorized a search of Cutrim’s premises at the request of the Federal Police and with the support of the Office of the Attorney General. On August 11, the Brazilian Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters (ABERT), the National Newspaper Association (ANJ), and the National Association of Magazine Publishers (ANER) warned that using seized journalistic material to identify a source has no constitutional basis and could set a dangerous precedent for investigative journalism.
In the second case, the Electoral Court of Alagoas ordered the removal of an edition of Tribuna do Sertão that had already been distributed. The decision ordered the removal from digital platforms of Edition No. 1,430 and publications related to the IPREV/Banco Master case, the collection of printed copies already in circulation, a ban on reprinting or republishing the material, and a daily fine of R$10,000, up to a maximum of R$100,000.
The measure caused particular concern because it was not limited to digital content but physically targeted copies that had already been distributed and restricted access to information that had entered public circulation. Press organizations warned that, because of its effects, the decision approached a classic form of censorship. The episode is part of a broader pattern of judicialization in Alagoas but stands out because of its direct impact on the circulation of a printed publication.
In the third case, decisions by the TSE and STF changed, only hours before it was scheduled to take place, the rules governing the final presidential debate of the first round on TV Globo, which had previously been agreed upon by the broadcaster and the campaigns. In response to the changes, Globo cited legal uncertainty and canceled the program.
The TSE prohibited showing Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s empty podium and directing questions to the absent candidate, even though this possibility was included in the rules accepted by the participating parties. Other judicial decisions also altered the criteria for candidate participation and the planned format. ANJ, ANER, and ABERT considered the measures a judicial intervention that affected press freedom.
Other cases also had consequences in the courts. In Amapá, journalist Heverson Castro began wearing an electronic ankle monitor to comply with a defamation conviction related to his coverage of a 2021 police violence case. In Minas Gerais, journalist Amaury Ribeiro Jr. received a semi-open sentence in a case related to the investigations that led to the book A Privataria Tucana.
In Minas Gerais, the Electoral Court also initially ordered the removal of a report by ICL Notícias about a voice message sent by federal lawmaker Nikolas Ferreira to former banker Daniel Vorcaro. The decision was subsequently challenged and modified.
During the period, Alagoas saw an exceptionally broad set of legal disputes involving journalists, media companies, communicators, content creators, candidates, and social media accounts.
An independent survey organized by journalists and lawyers and published by 082 Notícias on September 6 identified 183 proceedings, 138 different defendants, and 370 references to defendants. Of these, 172 cases were before the Regional Electoral Court of Alagoas (TRE-AL) and 11 before the ordinary courts. The volume, recurring subject matter, and impact of the measures led journalists and media professionals to hold a public demonstration on September 29 in the Jaraguá neighborhood of Maceió in defense of press freedom and against what they described as judicial harassment. The demonstration brought together professionals from different media outlets and civil society representatives.
A new episode occurred at the end of September. Tribuna reproduced information published by BNews Alagoas concerning statements attributed to physician Jurandir Bóia about his participation in a Senate ticket. The following day, it also published the response of Lieutenant Governor Ronaldo Lessa, who challenged the information and stated that Bóia remained on the ticket.
A subsequent decision ordered the temporary suspension of Tribuna’s Instagram accounts. In a statement issued on September 29, ANJ expressed concern and said that publishing information of public interest and the different versions presented by those involved are part of the practice of journalism.
Folha de Alagoas was also subject to judicial measures with significant impact. In June, a decision affected both the print edition and digital dissemination of an issue devoted to IPREV de Maceió’s investments in Banco Master. The court ordered the removal of the digital content, suspension of distribution of the print edition, and collection of copies that had already been distributed. Another decision also targeted videos showing the cover of that edition.
Journalist Bleine Oliveira was the subject of several complaints. In September, a TRE-AL decision ordered the removal of content, increased a fine, suspended her Instagram account for one day, and requested information from Meta. The journalist took the case to the STF. On September 17, Justice Alexandre de Moraes requested information from TRE-AL without ruling on the merits of the case at that time.
Another relevant case involved the journalistic cooperative Mídia Caeté, which arose from a dispute separate from actions involving João Henrique Caldas, an influential politician known as JHC. In Representation No. 0600488-32.2026.6.02.0000, the Electoral Court ordered the removal of a report and an Instagram post concerning leaked messages in which the director of a state school in Arapiraca offered financial assistance to students to attend a public event with state lawmaker Rafael Brito (MDB). The episode shows that the judicialization of journalistic content in Alagoas is not concentrated on disputes involving a single political sector.
Other cases of judicialization warrant monitoring.
Abraji reported identifying 15 criminal inquiries filed by the Federation of Industries of Mato Grosso do Sul (Fiems) against reporters, editors, and the founding partner of Midiamax over publications concerning investigations and suspected irregularities in contracts involving the organization. Before these measures against individuals, Fiems had filed two civil lawsuits against the outlet; requests for preliminary orders to remove publications were denied.
These inquiries are formal requests for explanations and may precede criminal complaints involving offenses against honor. They do not constitute convictions or, by themselves, establish judicial harassment. Abraji characterized the sequence as a judicial harassment tactic, while Fiems maintains its right to challenge publications it considers offensive or inaccurate.
In Pernambuco, journalist and blogger Ricardo Antunes had his Instagram account suspended for 48 hours on September 22 by order of the Regional Electoral Court of Pernambuco (TRE-PE). The decision also ordered the removal of a report about a family relationship between an electoral judge and a politician linked to the João Campos campaign and prohibited republication or promotion of the content, subject to a fine of R$30,000 per violation. TRE-PE stated that the suspension considered noncompliance with previous orders and difficulties in notifying the journalist.
Pressure on journalism did not occur only in the courts. In Cruzeiro do Sul, Acre, journalist Chico Melo’s home was invaded by four armed men on July 22. He was assaulted and threatened. According to statements he gave to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), the intruders asked whether he was the radio journalist who spoke about politics. The Civil Police said there was still insufficient evidence to conclusively establish a connection between the attack and his journalistic work.
In Porto Velho, Rondônia, two journalists were assaulted on consecutive days. On May 12, Edval Sheik reported being physically and verbally assaulted by City Councilman Marcos Combate inside the City Council building. The journalist filed a complaint. The councilman posted a video accusing him of attempting to extort him. The previous day, Richard Nunes, of Rondônia ao Vivo, was assaulted while covering a traffic accident.
In Paraná, Jadir Zimmermann, director of the Preto no Branco news portal, reported receiving a death threat in a WhatsApp voice message after publishing a report about a company. In Três Lagoas, Mato Grosso do Sul, Octávio Augusto, known as Tavinho, of Lagoa Agora, was assaulted by three men. He attributed the attack to Mayor Cassiano Maia, whose administration denied any involvement. The case began to be investigated.
Professionals in small cities and outside major urban centers faced serious incidents with less access to permanent security and legal-support structures.
The clearest case of a chilling effect on journalism itself occurred in Santarém, Pará. Tapajós de Fato spent part of 2026 planning and seeking funding for election coverage. Before publishing its first report, the team decided to abandon the project because it concluded that security conditions were inadequate.
The threats built on incidents from previous years. During the 2022 campaign, the severed head of a cat was left where the news team parked its vehicle, accompanied by a note bearing the name of founder Marcos Wesley Pedroso and the threat that he would be the next victim. Days earlier, the vehicle’s tires had been slashed. In another incident, a female media worker was attacked with a knife and managed to escape. The perpetrators were not identified, and it was not possible to conclusively establish a connection between all the incidents and journalistic work.
In 2026, in light of the history of threats and harassment, the team reduced its public exposure, closed personal accounts, and stopped publishing some content.
The worsening judicial environment occurred alongside a rapid escalation in digital violence with the start of the election campaign. Between August 16 and 29, the first report by the Coalition in Defense of Journalism (CDJor), through a monitoring partnership with the Internet and Data Science Laboratory of the Federal University of Espírito Santo (Labic/Ufes), recorded 2,630 attacks against the press. Between August 30 and September 12, another 4,400 attacks were recorded. The total reached 7,030 attacks during the first four weeks monitored.
The increase from the first to the second period was 67.3% in absolute terms.
Expressions used to discredit journalists and media companies included “militant journalist,” “coup media,” “bought-off press,” “bought poll,” “the PIX dropped,” and “fake news.” The monitoring recorded attacks originating from different positions across the political spectrum.
Women journalists accounted for the largest proportion of attacks directed by name at journalists on platforms monitored by CDJor. During the first period, they received nearly two-thirds of individualized attacks. In the second, they represented 59% of targets on Instagram and 52.8% on X.
In addition to attempts to discredit reports and journalists, several attacks included misogyny, sexual references, rape threats, attacks against family members, and incitement to physical violence.
Juliana Dal Piva became one of the most serious cases during the second half of the month after publishing reports involving Nikolas Ferreira and Daniel Vorcaro. She received accusations of producing “fake news,” sexually explicit and misogynistic messages, and threats of violence. Natália Viana, co-founder and executive director of Agência Pública, was targeted after contacting Paulo Figueiredo during an investigation. According to Abraji and CDJor, he began posting offensive messages, exposing the journalist, and encouraging his followers to amplify them.
Malu Gaspar, of O Globo, faced another form of pressure. Messages extracted from Daniel Vorcaro’s phone indicated that he sought information about the journalist’s relatives, bank accounts, and home address while she was investigating Banco Master. ANJ condemned the attempt to intimidate and called for an investigation into access to her personal data.
In Minas Gerais, Tatiana Lagôa, City Editor of O Tempo, was harassed by Governor Mateus Simões during an interview organized by the newspaper. In Bahia, Scheila Bernardes, of Rádio Cultura FM, reported attacks on social media and obtained a protective order after reporting that her home had been filmed by a municipal public official.
There were also instances of pressure against investigative journalism.
Intercept Brasil documented episodes of political pressure and attempts at intimidation. In May, following reports based on documents, audio recordings, and messages involving Daniel Vorcaro and members of the Bolsonaro family, Flávio Bolsonaro publicly attacked the outlet. An ally asked the STF and TSE to investigate the responsibilities of journalists involved in the reports. Also in May, a reporter went to Eduardo Bolsonaro’s residence in Texas seeking an interview. The politician called the police and posted a video about the incident. Subsequent comments by Paulo Figueiredo referred to the possibility of using force.
The case involving Piauí magazine requires a temporal distinction. The attacks described occurred before the period covered by this report, but information linking them to possible perpetrators became public in late September 2026.
A report based on messages extracted from Daniel Vorcaro’s phone said that members of his group had discussed accessing journalist Consuelo Dieguez’s corporate email and the magazine’s systems, as well as an effort to take down the website following reports about Banco Master.
Abraji reported on September 30 that the documented attacks occurred between 2023 and 2025. In 2025, reporter Allan de Abreu’s Instagram account was suspended following mass reports and was restored only about 20 days after the magazine’s legal intervention. Arthur Guimarães also received many offensive comments from accounts with similar characteristics.
The development during the period was the disclosure of the messages, which provided additional information about methods of intimidation and coordinated attacks against a newsroom investigating a major economic group.
The 2026 elections consolidated artificial intelligence as a routine tool of political communication. Campaigns began using technology to create images, videos, text, voices, and animations at costs and within time frames far lower than those of traditional productions. The use of AI is not an irregularity. The risk arises when artificial content is presented as authentic, attributes nonexistent words or actions to individuals, or alters facts in ways capable of deceiving voters.
By 2026, the TSE required the identification of certain synthetic content, imposed limits on deepfakes, established special restrictions around Election Day, and prohibited AI systems that recommend candidates or voting choices. These new forms of manipulation expanded the challenge for journalism: in addition to verifying facts, documents, and statements, newsrooms must verify the authenticity of voices, images, and videos. There is also the reverse risk that genuine content may be dismissed as “AI-generated,” making it increasingly important to preserve its provenance and authenticity.
In September, the relationship between the press and the judiciary also involved conditions for in-person coverage. On September 14, the STF initially announced that accredited press professionals would not be allowed to follow from inside the chamber the extraordinary session scheduled for the trial of Petition 16.662. The press would have access to the building’s entrance area, while specialized journalists could remain in the Press Committee. Press organizations protested, arguing that the official broadcast does not replace the independent presence of journalists. The following day, the Supreme Court partially revised the rules and allowed a limited group of professionals to enter. Photojournalists remained barred from the chamber.
Broadcasting a trial expands public access, but it does not replace in-person observation, independent image production, or the ability to follow the atmosphere of the proceedings.
The judiciary’s actions did not solely restrict the press; there were also decisions that reaffirmed the rights of journalists and media outlets.
On April 28, the First Panel of the STF unanimously ruled that the state of São Paulo must compensate photojournalist Sergio Andrade da Silva, who was struck by a rubber bullet while covering the June 2013 protests while working for a news agency. Sergio lost sight in his left eye. The Court awarded R$100,000 in moral damages and a lifetime pension.
In São Paulo, the Eighth Private Law Chamber of the Court of Justice upheld a decision allowing Luís Nassif and Jornal GGN to retain a report about former Central Bank President Roberto Campos Neto and rejected a compensation claim. The trial court had already dismissed the claims.
Amid the increase in restrictions, attacks, and pressure, Brazil also saw significant mobilization in defense of journalism and press freedom. Between September 25 and October 1, ANJ coordinated the World News Day campaign, which brought together approximately 150 media outlets, organizations, academic institutions, and professionals from different regions of the country, 60% more than the previous year.
