Brazil: Jair Bolsonaro sentenced to 27 years in prison for an attempted coup d’état
Former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro (2019-2022) was found guilty of attempting a coup on Thursday, September 11, 2025.
Brazil’s Supreme Court sentenced him to 27 years and three months in prison for having organized, according to the prosecution, a “criminal organization” aimed at keeping him in power after his defeat in the 2022 presidential election.
According to the judges, Bolsonaro is guilty of conspiring to overthrow the democratic order. Among the alleged maneuvers is a supposed plot to eliminate the president-elect, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, although the act did not succeed due to the lack of support from some senior military officers.
Eight of his close associates: former ministers and high-ranking military officers were also among the defendants. Their sentences range from 2 to 26 years in prison, depending on their level of involvement.
The sentence makes Jair Bolsonaro ineligible to run until 2030. Under house arrest, he did not attend the reading of the verdict, citing health reasons. His lawyers denounce an “excessive” sentence and announce their intention to appeal, including to international bodies.
They have five days after the official publication of the judgment to file an appeal. As long as this procedure is not exhausted, the former president will not be imprisoned.
The verdict prompted strong reactions internationally. Former U.S. president Donald Trump denounced a “witch hunt,” saying that Bolsonaro was the victim of a political trial. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio mentioned possible “appropriate reprisals” in a message on X, while Brasilia reaffirmed its determination not to give in to external pressures.
This is the first time a former Brazilian head of state has been convicted for attempting to overthrow the democratic order.
This conviction marks a political and judicial turning point in Brazil, with consequences that go beyond the Bolsonaro case. It could redefine the relationship between civilian authority and the armed forces and rekindle the debate over citizens’ trust in the rule of law.
Comments