Folha de S.Paulo · Februar 2026

• frames Trump's actions as theatrical or aggressive
• highlights negative consequences of Trump's policies
• uses distancing or critical quotes from opponents
• reports setbacks and controversies involving Trump

Headline 15 reports a positive outcome (lower food prices) from Trump's policy, but overall coverage is consistently critical, with many headlines focusing on conflicts, criticisms, and negative impacts. The outlet's own vocabulary ('teatro', 'armadilha', 'guerra de escolha', 'terror e negociata') and selection of critical voices (Lula, Obama, Macron, Vatican) indicate a skeptical stance toward Trump.

• reports Lula's actions and statements without evaluative adjectives
• includes both positive and negative coverage of Lula-related events
• uses neutral verbs like 'diz' (says) and 'defende' (defends) for Lula
• covers opposition criticism and internal party concerns about Lula

The bundle covers Lula extensively but with a mix of neutral reporting on his statements (headlines 10, 12), critical coverage of controversies involving him (headlines 14, 19, 20), and opposition reactions (headline 9). No consistent positive or negative framing toward the entity BR (Brazil) is evident; the outlet treats Lula as a political actor whose actions are reported factually, with some headlines highlighting challenges or criticisms but without adopting a hostile or promotional stance.

• Trump as a source of economic pressure and geopolitical challenge
• Trump's actions framed as aggressive or reality-defying
• US institutions (ICE, Epstein case) portrayed negatively
• Brazilian leaders positioned as needing to confront or negotiate with US

The outlet's stance toward the US is primarily critical, focusing on Trump's tariffs, aggressive foreign policy, and domestic controversies (Epstein, ICE). However, coverage is not uniformly hostile; some headlines are neutral or factual (e.g., Nvidia earnings, IBM stock). The entity is 'US' broadly, but most negative framing targets the Trump administration specifically, not the country as a whole.

• reports Lula's statements and actions without evaluative adjectives
• includes both positive and negative coverage (allies' doubts, technical veto, criticism)
• uses neutral verbs like 'diz', 'encontra', 'veta', 'procura'
• occasionally highlights controversies or setbacks (TCU veto, Vorcaro irritation, desgaste)

The bundle is mixed: some headlines report Lula's actions neutrally (1, 8, 16), others note criticism or problems (4, 14, 23). Headline 7 uses a metaphorical phrase ('põe Trump no palanque') that could be interpreted as critical but is not overtly hostile. No consistent positive or negative framing toward Lula as a person; the outlet maintains a factual, sometimes critical distance.