Congress enters decisive voting week amid institutional crisis

In the words of a seasoned lawmaker, the prevailing mood in Brasília is one of “uncertainty, insecurity and unpredictability,” making it difficult to foresee what may happen even over the course of a month. On Friday (12), the Federal Police’s Transparency operation, which targeted a staffer of the Chamber of Deputies, Mariângela Fialek, known as Tuca, prompted Chamber Speaker Hugo Motta (Republicans of Paraíba) to call an emergency meeting with party leaders to discuss a joint response to the police action. Many lawmakers had already returned to their home states and had to come back to the federal capital.

Motta issued a statement defending the former staffer, stressing that he respects Supreme Court decisions, but that “a careful and correct reading” of Justice Flávio Dino’s ruling “does not point to any act of misuse of public funds.” “None. Any potential misuse, it bears repeating, must be properly investigated,” the statement said.

The operation deepened turbulence between the Chamber and the Supreme Court, as dozens of Federal Police agents circulated through the building to execute search-and-seizure warrants in offices where the staffer worked. Relations had already been strained after the Court annulled a plenary session that kept Federal Deputy Carla Zambelli in office, contrary to a court order. In response, also on Friday (12) the Supreme Court’s First Panel upheld a preliminary injunction by Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordering the loss of Zambelli’s mandate. On Sunday (14), Motta scheduled a meeting with the Chamber’s legal team to consult on the case. Later that afternoon, the Chamber released a statement saying Zambelli had resigned.

Before the crisis escalated, the Chamber’s agenda, under a special voting schedule, included the removals of Ramagem and of Deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro (PL of São Paulo), who moved to the U.S. in March and from there lobbied in favor of Donald Trump’s tariff hikes. There are doubts, however, in both cases. Regarding Ramagem, since the Supreme Court voided the lawmakers’ decision to shield Zambelli, there is uncertainty over whether Motta will submit the case to the plenary. As for Eduardo, the Trump administration’s withdrawal of Magnitsky Act sanctions imposed on Moraes could weigh in his favor.

In parallel, Motta had signaled to the presidential palace the possibility of putting to a vote a proposed constitutional amendment on public security, as well as a bill to cut tax incentives, reported by Deputy Aguinaldo Ribeiro (Progressives Party, PP, Paraíba). But as the Chamber speaker’s relationship with the Workers’ Party (PT) has deteriorated, especially after Sunday’s protests (14) against passage of the sentencing bill, the most likely outcome is that this measure, crucial to the Finance Ministry, will be postponed to 2026.

Lawmakers are also expected to consider the anti-gang bill, which returned from the Senate. On the economic front, there is anticipation around a vote on the complementary bill regulating the tax reform.

Another factor fueling the crisis, the bill that reduces sentences for those convicted over the January 8 attacks, which benefits former President Jair Bolsonaro (PL), is set to be voted on in the Senate plenary on Wednesday (17). Resistance among influential senators persists, and the impact of street pressure against the proposal on lawmakers remains to be seen. Senator Renan Calheiros (Brazilian Democratic Movement, MDB, Alagoas) has already told people close to him that he intends to deliver a forceful speech opposing the measure.

If confirmed, Senate consideration of the sentencing bill is part of a broad behind-the-scenes agreement involving the leaderships of the Chamber and the Senate, and factions within the Supreme Court. The talks excluded the presidential palace, Senate leaders, and the PT, which said they were surprised by the Chamber’s vote on the bill early last week.

One element of the deal was Supreme Court acquiescence to the sentencing text, reported by Federal Deputy Paulinho da Força (Solidarity of São Paulo), who has good communication channels with the justices. Valor learned that some factions within the court viewed the final text as “mathematically” insignificant. For example, the Supreme Court’s understanding is that Bolsonaro’s sentence progression could be reviewed starting at three and a half years. Current law requires four and a half years, based on a sentence of 27 years and three months in prison.

Another item in the agreement involved the Supreme Court stepping back from a preliminary decision by Justice Gilmar Mendes that limited to the Office of the Prosecutor General (PGR) the authority to seek impeachment of Court members. On December 10, Justice Mendes granted a request by the Senate’s legal office to that effect. On the other hand, senators reached an agreement in the Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ) to propose an update to the rule within six months.

Another commitment, however, was allegedly breached by the Chamber’s plenary: the removal of Federal Deputy Carla Zambelli. In May, the Supreme Court’s First Panel sentenced her to 10 years in prison, initially in a closed regime, for hacking systems and tampering with documents of the National Justice Council (CNJ). The same ruling ordered the loss of her mandate. As lawmakers failed to comply with the court order, the Supreme Court annulled the Chamber’s plenary decision.

At the same time, it is worth recalling that it was precisely the crisis surrounding parliamentary earmarks, stemming from Justice Dino’s decisions at the end of 2024 imposing strict rules on the execution of funds, that delayed the vote on the 2025 budget law. The rapporteur was Senator Ângelo Coronel (Social Democratic Party, PSD, Bahia), who publicly criticized Dino’s decisions. The proposal was only voted on in March, after an understanding brokered by Institutional Relations Minister Gleisi Hoffmann, who had just taken office.

Friday’s Federal Police operation targeted earmarks directly by focusing on Tuca, the congressional aide, whom the Supreme Court identifies as allegedly responsible for the “organization and distribution of resources” from parliamentary earmarks “linked to the secret budget for several years.” The decision adds that she “supposedly” acted under direct orders from the former leadership of the Chamber, citing that the post was held by Federal Deputy Arthur Lira (PP of Alagoas), while noting that this fact “is still under investigation.” Through his press office, Lira emphasized that he is not a target of the probe and that Tuca is no longer his aide.

In addition, behind the scenes, Lira was angered by the decision to keep in office his rival, Federal Deputy Glauber Braga (Socialism and Freedom Party, PSOL, Rio de Janeiro), who received a six-month suspension for breach of decorum. Braga appears, along with other lawmakers, as one of the whistleblowers to the Supreme Court in the alleged secret budget scheme.

Despite the succession of crises, the rapporteur of the 2026 Annual Budget Law (LOA), Federal Deputy Isnaldo Bulhões (MDB of Alagoas), told Valor he sees no crisis scenario in Congress that could hinder next week’s vote. “Everything is fine with the budget, there is nothing to contaminate the vote,” he said.