In the dispute between the Brazilian State and Starlink, the government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has embodied an active defense of legal sovereignty in the era of global private infrastructures. More than a personal conflict with Elon Musk, the episode reveals a structural tension between technology corporations with planetary reach and States seeking to preserve their capacity for democratic regulation.
A new type of power
The deployment of low-Earth-orbit satellite internet has altered the traditional balance between infrastructure and sovereignty. Services such as Starlink do not depend on national physical networks; they literally orbit above territories. That technical condition reshapes the classic map of power: infrastructure is no longer necessarily anchored to the ground regulated by the State.
In this context, Elon Musk is not merely an entrepreneur. He is the owner of a satellite constellation capable of guaranteeing or withdrawing connectivity in remote areas, influencing strategic communications, and participating—directly or indirectly—in regulatory disputes with high political impact. When that power is exercised alongside confrontational rhetoric toward state authorities, public perception may lean toward the image of a private actor operating with a logic of pressure.
The image of a “cyberspace bully” is not a legal category but a political metaphor that emerges when three factors converge: technological concentration, constant media exposure, and a willingness to engage in public confrontation with governments.
Brazil as a paradigmatic case
The institutional clash in Brazil did not arise from a rejection of satellite technology. The country has actively promoted the expansion of connectivity in the Amazon and in historically excluded regions. What was at stake was something else: the State’s capacity to enforce judicial decisions within its territory.
The Federal Supreme Court adopted measures affecting companies linked to Musk within the framework of disputes over regulatory compliance. The government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva supported the enforcement of the law. The message was clear: no company, however powerful, can place itself above the national legal order.
Here the image of David versus Goliath takes shape. Not because of structural weakness—Brazil is a regional power with solid institutions—but because of the material asymmetry between a State that regulates within its borders and a corporation operating from low Earth orbit with global reach.
Coherence in public policy
The Brazilian response has not been to expel the technology or close itself off from the market. On the contrary, it has promoted diversification of providers and strategic partnerships to reduce dependence on a single actor. This line fits within a broader strategy of digital sovereignty: expanding connectivity under clear national rules.
Lula’s coherence lies in simultaneously maintaining three objectives:
Expanding internet access in remote territories.
Diversifying technological partners, including European and Asian actors.
Reaffirming the authority of the State over any company operating within its jurisdiction.
This is not anti-Americanism nor automatic alignment with China. It is strategic governance: preventing critical infrastructure from remaining in the hands of a single provider whose direction depends on unilateral corporate decisions.
Sovereignty in the orbital era
The confrontation is not simply Brazil versus Musk. It is the symptom of a global dilemma: who governs digital space when key infrastructure belongs to private actors with transnational ambitions?
In the twentieth century, sovereignty was defended on land, sea, and air. In the twenty-first century, it is also contested in low Earth orbit and on digital platforms.
Lula’s government has opted for a position that privileges the primacy of domestic law and democratic regulation. In that framework, the narrative of the “bully” functions as a symbolic warning: technological power without counterbalances can overflow institutions.
The Brazilian case is not an isolated episode but a preview of debates that will traverse Latin America and the Global South in the immediate years ahead. Satellite connectivity is a tool for inclusion and development. But it is also an instrument of power.
Brazil’s strategic coherence lies in recognizing both dimensions. Defending legal sovereignty is not rejecting innovation; it is demanding that innovation operate within democratic frameworks.
In this tension between orbit and territory, between corporation and State, a new architecture of global power is being defined, and for States, having these discussions settled and their positions clear will make the difference.
