This news article appeared today in Brazil’s largest newspaper, Folha de S.Paulo, in Portuguese; the translated article in English appears below.

The media company of U.S. President Donald Trump, along with the American video platform Rumble, filed a joint lawsuit in a U.S. federal court today against the notorious Brazilian Supreme Court judge Alexandre de Moraes. The platforms seek a judicial declaration that Moraes’ recent orders — which mandate that Rumble close the account of right-wing commentator Allan dos Santos and turn over all of his user data — violates the sovereignty of the United States, the U.S. Constitution, and American law. Moraes issued the orders in secret, and required Rumble not to disclose the contents of the order.

Rumble left Brazil in December, 2023, due to what it described as numerous unjust “censorship orders” from Moraes to ban multiple creators and voices on the platform, including elected members of Congress. At the time, Moraes ordered Rumble to keep those orders secret, and threatened the company with being shut off in Brazil if it failed to immediately comply: similar to how, last August, Moraes ordered X closed in Brazil for failure to comply with orders banning users and removing posts. 

We obtained and published a copy of one such secret order — directed to multiple platforms — in January, 2023. They gave the platforms two hours to comply or face substantial daily fines. Rumble shut off its service in Brazil rather than comply.

But with a new Trump administration vowing to protect American technology companies from censorship demands by foreign governments, and with Moraes recently withdrawing an order blocking the Rumble account of the podcaster Monark, Rumble made its content once again available in Brazil earlier this month. Almost immediately, Moraes sent orders to Rumble’s former lawyers in the country, directing them to once again represent Rumble so that they could receive his orders on the company’s behalf. 

Moraes’ new order at the center of the lawsuit is one that directed Rumble to fully close the account of dos Santos and prevent him from opening any new ones. Unlike prior orders from Moraes, this one does not merely force the platform to block dos Santos’ content from being available in Brazil. 

The order requires that Rumble ban dos Santos entirely from using or monetizing Rumble in any way, including outside of Brazil. As prior orders did, it gave Rumble only two hours to comply.

Dos Santos was charged in Brazil with several crimes relating to the alleged disinformation he posted about the STF and 2022 election. But in April of last year, the Biden administration rejected Brazil’s extradition request on the ground that such acts are not and cannot be considered crimes in the U.S., as they are protected by the right to free expression. 

Under extradition treaties, countries generally refuse to extradite a foreign national if the acts that form the basis of the request are not crimes in that country. Dos Santos’ application for political asylum in the U.S. is pending, and he remains a legal resident of the U.S. 

Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski said in a statement that the American rejection of that extradition request should have put an end to Moraes’ attempt to limit dos Santos’ speech in the U.S. Instead, he said, “[Moraes] is now attempting to sidestep the U.S. legal system entirely — using secret censorship orders to pressure American social media into banning the political dissident worldwide.”

Rumble’s lawyer E. Martin De Luca, of the large law firm Boies Schiller, said that, as a legal resident of the U.S., Dos Santos’ “speech is fully protected under the First Amendment.” The purpose of the suit, he said, is “to ensure that American businesses remain governed by American law and that no foreign court can unilaterally dictate what speech is allowed on American platforms without proper authorization from the U.S. government.”

It has become a top goal of American technology companies to enlist the Trump administration in their fight against political censorship imposed by foreign governments. When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced in January that Facebook’s “fact-checking program” would end, he asked the U.S. Government to protect tech companies against foreign governments who are “going after American companies and pushing to censor more.” When asked about Meta’s announcement, Trump expressed approval for it.

Lawyers for Trump’s media company argue that any attempt to disrupt Rumble’s operations in Brazil would also harm Trump’s company, Trump Media and Technology Group Corp. (Trump Media), and its Truth Social media platform. Rumble provides Truth Social with the cloud services on which the site depends. Any blocking of Rumble, Trump Media argues, will destabilize Truth Social as well, giving the company a legal basis to challenge Moraes’ orders directed at Rumble.

The political consequences of this new lawsuit could be at least as significant as its legal implications, perhaps more so. Many key figures in Trump’s new government have long harbored animosity toward Moraes and toward what they see as Brazil’s increasingly repressive censorship regime. Focusing a light on Moraes and depicting his orders as an attack on American sovereignty, American companies and the free speech rights of U.S. residents is likely to inflame tensions among Moraes’ now-powerful American opponents.

Chief among those is Elon Musk, the person arguably most powerful in the new American government. During X’s battle with the STF, Musk launched multiple harsh rhetorical attacks on Moraes, calling him “a tyrannical dictator masquerading as a judge” and a “criminal.” In August, Musk published an AI-generated photo of Moraes behind prison bars and wrote: “One day, @Alexandre, this picture of you in prison will be real. Mark my words.”  

The decision by Trump’s media company to join Rumble’s lawsuit against Moraes undoubtedly signals the new administration’s intent to combat many of the Brazilian judge’s censorship orders. Thus far, the Trump administration has largely avoided specifically targeting Brazil with the kinds of retaliatory tariffs, demands and punishments imposed on other countries. But this lawsuit against Moraes from Trump’s media company can, and almost certainly will, inflame these latent conflicts between the two governments.

In addition to seeking a ruling that Moraes’ order violates American sovereignty and law, the lawsuit also requests an order be issued to Apple and Google, requiring them not to abide by any directives from Moraes to remove Truth Social or Rumble’s platform from their stores. It also requests a jury trial to determine the validity of the companies’ claims against Moraes.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald has a contract with Rumble to provide exclusivity for his online show for 12 hours; Rumble has no editorial control (or any other control) over the show or Greenwald’s journalism.

Welcome to another week of System Update!

We’re back with another Weekly Update to give you every link to all of Glenn’s best moments from Monday (February 10th) to Friday (February 14th). Let’s get to it.

Daily Updates

MONDAY: Sinister USAID Programs, Rumble’s Return, and the CFPB

In this episode, we discussed…

1. Sinister, uncovered programs influenced by USAID;

2. Why Rumble has returned to Brazil after yearlong exile;

3. How the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau empowers Wall Street;

TUESDAY: Trump’s New Gaza Plan & Netanyahu’s Ceasefire Malintent

In this episode, we covered…

4. The Trump plan to invent Gaza-a-Lago;

5. Netanyahu’s consistent efforts to sabotage a lasting ceasefire deal;

WEDNESDAY: New Administration Calls for End to Ukraine War

In this episode, Glenn examined…

6. How we can understand Trump and Hegseth’s olive-branch signals to Europe;

7.  What the gerontocracy looks like, with Daniel Boguslaw;

THURSDAY: No Show

FRIDAY: Prof. Norman Finkelstein Returns to S.U.

8. In this episode, a subscriber-favorite voice discusses Israel, the United States, and the Middle East.

About those question submissions: They’re LIVE!

Here’s a repeat announcement for all of you: 

We noticed that many of you didn’t submit recorded questions, possibly because the process was unclear. Regardless, we’re here to announce that our submission feature is now LIVE. Simply follow the Rumble Studio link included in our Tuesday and Thursday Locals after-show announcements to record your questions, share praise for our editors, or comment on current events.

Again, please be aware that shorter questions are easier to include in the after-show!

Locals benefits are being retooled. Here’s what that means:

Maybe you've seen this message already? We're going to release a submission guide later this week!

For now, it means that our subscribers’ questions will be relegated to our new LIVE Friday mailbag, where Glenn will pull from the best questions, recorded and written, from the past week across all of our community-exclusive posts and discussions. Now, in other words, your questions will be seen by our entire Rumble audience. Rewards will be given for proper grammar and spelling. But there’s more!

In addition to our rescheduled question-and-answer segment(s), there will also be an increasing number of paywalled third segments, meaning that only you (our loyal Locals community members) will have access to the full range of System Update-related content. To be clear, this will happen slowly over the next month, so don’t be too alarmed. Be a little alarmed. Actually, a moderate level of alarm is appropriate—like 45% alarmed.

That’s it for this edition of the Weekly Update! 

We’ll see you next week…

“Stay tuned for a Weekly Update update!”

— System Update Crew

Professor Norman Finkelstein is a good friend of the show. He's appeared here many times. He is, without a doubt, one of the most informed scholars on the history of Israel and the Israel-Palestinian conflict. He is, among other things, the author of the 2000 book “The Holocaust Industry,” which describes how Israelis and Zionists exploit the Holocaust as a massive industry in order to exploit the world to get huge amounts of money that end up supporting the Israeli government. 

He's been a vocal critic of the Israeli government before the destruction of Gaza but during the destruction of Gaza has really emerged as a strong, morally clear and highly informed scholar and analyst of this situation. We are always delighted to have him here. He's a guest to whom our audience reacts very positively, as somebody who helps them navigate and understand very complex issues. 

We sat down with him today a little bit ago and we explored a wide range of issues beginning with the cease-fire in Gaza and the Trump administration's policy toward that region and a whole variety of other related issues. Here is our discussion with Professor Finkelstein that we recorded earlier today:

G. Greenwald: Norman, it's great to see you. Thank you for joining us. We haven't spoken since the imposition of or the agreement to the cease-fire that was agreed to just days before Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20. There have been violations of that cease-fire and there are a lot of imperfections with that cease-fire, but do you think the cease-fire itself is a positive step forward when compared to what came before it? 

Norman Finkelstein: That's a difficult question to answer because there's an immediate effect, which of course is positive. The people of Gaza were celebrating the fact that after 16 months of relentless and historically unprecedented bombing, the genocide in that form had come to an end and it would be verging on satanic on my part to be critical of that development. There was huge human relief at the end of the cessation of the bombing. 

As to where it will lead, I'm a little bit skeptical about the terms of the agreement based on two facts: number one, if you look at the historical precedents all of the terms attached to agreements after Operation Cast Lead in 2008-9, after the Mavi Marmara incident on May 31, 2010; after Operation Protective Edge, in 2014, all of the terms, apart from the actual cease-fire, all of the terms to lift the medieval criminal blockade of Gaza, to ease at least the criminal medieval blockade of Gaza, those terms were never honored and it was striking that after Operation Pillar of Defense, in 2012, when Israel had to decide whether to agree to a cease-fire which also included easing the blockade or lifting the blockade – Ehud Barak who was the defense minister at the time he said “Once the cease-fire is agreed to, all the terms are forgotten” and it was on that assumption that Israel agreed to the cease-fire. 

My guess this time around and I don't pretend to have any insider knowledge on the subject, nor have I followed it closely, my guess this time is Donald Trump wants to take credit for having gotten all the hostages released and he can claim that as a huge “diplomatic victory” and so he is waiting for the hostages every last one of them to be released. 

He'll become a hero in Israel, and he will, as I said, be able to claim a major diplomatic victory, but all the rest seems to me completely far-fetched to believe that will be followed through on and that brings me to my second reservation. It strikes me as totally far-fetched that after spending 15, 16 months trying to render Gaza unlivable which was the main goal after October 7, to render it unlivable so that those who weren't killed would be faced with only two options as the senior government official, government advisor Yoav Gallant put it, they'll be left with only two options: to stay and to starve or to leave. 

I find it completely untenable that suddenly the Israeli government is going to do an about-face and say, “All we are saying is give peace a chance.” That doesn't seem to me very plausible and with Donald Trump's announced plan of deporting the entire population – in his view, it will be a willing deportation because of new opportunities he promises to open up to them – but whether it's willing deportation or unwilling deportation, the fact remains deportation is incompatible with humanitarian aid to make life sustainable and it's certainly incompatible with reconstruction – a reconstruction not the turning of Gaza into a Riviera but a reconstruction that enables the population to stay in place. Its humanitarian aid reconstruction is simply incompatible, fundamentally, not just incompatible, in contradiction with Israel's announced goal objective after October 7, to render Gaza unlivable, and it's incompatible with Donald Trump's announced objective of turning Gaza into the Riviera minus its indigenous population. 

So, I believe that once all of the Israeli hostages are returned, Israel will be given a free hand and the prospects of sufficient humanitarian aid and reconstruction which – humanitarian aid was integrated into stage one and stage two and reconstruction in this nebulous stage three, even stage two is nebulous. I can't see that happening. 

G. Greenwald: Yeah. I take your skepticism and not just take it but share it completely. At the same time, I'm wondering whether you know it's certainly true that the Israeli goal from the start was to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza in order to claim it for themselves and, in order to do that, as you also correctly observed, there was a need to make Gaza uninhabitable. If you listen to Trump and everyone around Trump, the premise of everything they're saying is that Gaza is already uninhabitable. Steve Witkoff, his envoy, went to Gaza on a short little excursion into it, protected by the IDF and basically came back and said, “There's nothing there but rubble”. Trump's whole argument for this pipe dream of cleansing Gaza is that there's nothing left of Gaza, there's no civilian infrastructure, and there are basically no buildings left. All of this is true. So, just focused for a moment on the narrow question of whether Israel intends to resume bombing or whether Trump wants the Israelis to resume bombing, why does Israel really need to keep bombing, given that they've essentially turned Gaza into nothing but a pile of rubble?

Norman Finkelstein: I totally agree with that. I would just like to add a couple of relevant observations. Number one: those who are outraged at what Trump has been saying it ought to be born in mind – the perfectly obvious ought to be born in mind – that Trump is ostensibly simply reacting to a situation enabled, created, by the Biden administration. If I understood from day one and I said it from day one that Israel's goal was to render Gaza uninhabitable, certainly, the Biden administration, Mr. Blinken, they were aware of that goal, they green-lighted that goal, and they enabled that goal. So, the situation to which President Trump is speaking was created under Biden's watch. If there were any doubt about what Israel's goal was, all you have to do is read the statements coming out of Israel, at the highest levels to the base of Israeli society, from one end of the spectrum to the other end of the spectrum, and in both official institutions and civil society institutions. There was a consensus and here I would want to note that, by now, we have so many compendia of collecting all the genocidal statements that were uttered during the past 15 months. We have in May 29, 2024, South Africa submitted a letter to the Security Council and it was accompanied by 121 pages single space of documentation in its entirety comprising the genocidal statements by Israeli society and I want to emphasize that because sometimes you can say a genocidal policy is a state policy but I do not believe that's an accurate description of what unfolded in Gaza the past 16 months. It was a national project encompassing the whole of Israeli society and so there was simply a kind of explosion of the id, the unconscious, the subconscious whatever departments of the psyche you believe in. There was this explosion of the most horrendous genocidal statements every day, every hour. On every social media option, there was this explosion, so you can't really say that the Israelis didn't know, as the Germans pretended after Hitler's defeat, you can't say they didn't know, and you certainly can’t say the Biden administration didn't know. If I knew, they knew. All you had to do was converse with Israeli officials or read your daily updates provided to senior officials by the CIA and other institutions. All you had to do was read them.