O Estado de S. Paulo · March 2026

• editorial opinion pieces warning against Trump's actions
• neutral reporting of Trump's decisions and their market impacts
• use of distancing verbs like 'diz' (says) and 'ameaças' (threats)
• selection includes negative consequences of US policies

The outlet's own editorial voice is critical (headlines 1, 13), but many headlines are factual reporting of Trump's actions and market reactions, not evaluative. The entity is the US (country), not Trump personally, but coverage focuses heavily on Trump's decisions. Stance is slightly negative due to editorial criticism and framing of US actions as problematic.

• portrays Trump as a source of pressure and conflict
• uses evaluative language like 'fracasso', 'atoleiro', 'ameaças'
• frames Trump's actions as problematic or risky
• includes opinion pieces critical of Trump

Some headlines report Trump's statements neutrally (e.g., 8, 15, 25), but the overall selection emphasizes negative consequences and includes direct criticism. The entity's quoted content is often about conflicts with others, but the outlet's framing is skeptical toward Trump.

• highlights electoral weakness and fatigue
• frames Lula as isolated or losing influence
• associates Lula with scandals and controversies
• uses negative evaluative language in headlines

Headlines 15, 20, and 24 report Lula's actions neutrally, but the overall bundle is dominated by negative framing, including explicit criticism of his political standing and associations with scandals. The outlet does not use celebratory or promotional language; instead, it consistently emphasizes Lula's vulnerabilities and problems.

• foregrounds corruption allegations and scandals involving Lula and his family
• uses distancing framing when reporting Lula's actions
• highlights Lula's political losses and declining trust
• juxtaposes Lula's problems with opposition figures' gains

Headline 23 reports a positive action by Lula (editing MP for aid) neutrally, but the overall bundle is dominated by negative framing. The outlet's stance is skeptical/critical rather than outright hostile; it does not use delegitimising labels like 'regime' but consistently exposes failures and scandals.

• factual reporting of legal and medical events
• occasional use of distancing verbs like 'revela' (reveals) in critical contexts
• balanced coverage of Bolsonaro's health and legal status
• some headlines focus on allies' statements rather than Bolsonaro directly

Coverage is largely neutral and event-driven, but includes some critical framing (e.g., 'golpe de Bolsonaro' in headline 2) and some sympathetic health updates. The outlet does not consistently praise or attack Bolsonaro; stance is mixed and context-dependent.

• foregrounds opposition and impeachment efforts against Moraes
• highlights ethical controversies involving Moraes's family and associates
• uses neutral reporting verbs but selects negative framing angles
• includes external attacks on Moraes without counterbalance

Headlines 1, 5, 7, 8, 14 report Moraes's judicial decisions neutrally or as factual actions, which tempers the overall stance. However, the selection heavily emphasizes controversies, opposition moves, and ethical questions, creating a critical undertone. The entity's quoted content is not the focus; rather, the outlet's choice of stories frames Moraes as a target of political and ethical scrutiny.