NextFin news, On November 8, 2025, amidst escalating public security concerns in Brazil, Guilherme Derrite, the Secretary of Public Security of São Paulo and a member of the Progressives Party (PP), assumed the role of rapporteur for the federal government’s anti-faction legislative project. This initiative, under the scrutiny of the Chamber of Deputies and scheduled for parliamentary consideration soon, proposes a paradigm shift by advocating the classification of criminal factions—paramilitary gangs operating in major urban centers—as terrorist organizations.
Derrite stepped down temporarily from his state position to lead this legislative effort, signaling its political weight. The appointment, made by Hugo Motta, President of the Chamber, has sparked controversy, with government members rejecting the involvement due to Derrite’s critical stance on the current federal administration’s policies. The anti-faction bill seeks to increase penalties significantly—prison terms up to 40 years for faction-related crimes, mandatory high-security imprisonment for group leaders, and stringent restrictions on pardons and parole. It also aims to harden regime progression rules, especially for repeat offenders implicated in fatalities linked to faction activities.
The opposition, spearheaded by deputies such as Danilo Forte and supported by figures like Senator Ciro Nogueira, champions the bill to criminalize factions under anti-terrorism statutes, integrating them within Brazil’s broader counterterrorism framework, originally established by the 2016 Anti-Terrorism Law. This comes in the wake of a violent police operation in Rio de Janeiro that resulted in 121 deaths, catalyzing demands for a more aggressive legal response to organized crime.
Conversely, the federal government led by President Lula, opposes equating criminal factions to terrorists. Officials, including Institutional Relations Minister Gleisi Hoffmann, emphasize that terrorism entails explicit political or ideological motives absent in faction activities. The government favors a “follow-the-money” approach, focusing on dismantling criminal financial networks rather than expanding armed confrontations. The government’s proposed anti-faction bill reframes faction-related offenses as “qualified criminal organization” crimes, intending to strengthen asset confiscation processes and judicial interventions with less politicization of the classification.
Experts warn of significant risks. Renato Galeno, coordinator of international relations at Ibmec-RJ, highlights the potential rise in Brazil’s risk premium and consequent interest rate hikes if criminal factions are legally defined as terrorists. This could reduce foreign investment appetite and complicate credit access, affecting banking and insurance sectors heavily reliant on international reinsurance. Furthermore, Daniel Cerqueira from the Brazilian Forum on Public Safety underscores the conceptual error of conflating organized crime with terrorism, noting the ideological underpinnings of terrorism that criminal gangs lack.
From a political perspective, the appointment of Derrite as rapporteur symbolizes the ongoing polarization within Brazil’s legislative landscape, where the Centrão bloc and opposition parties push hardliner tactics, while the government base resists such measures. The refusal of Hugo Motta to merge opposition anti-terrorism projects with the government’s anti-faction bill reflects strategic legislative maneuvering to maintain distinct approaches.
The ongoing legislative debate reflects deeper structural challenges in Brazil’s public security framework. Criminal factions like Comando Vermelho and Primeiro Comando da Capital exert significant territorial control, influencing social dynamics and economic activities within urban centers, particularly Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. The proposed legal reclassification aims to reinforce state coercive power and disrupt factional dominance through enhanced penal sanctions and financial controls, including freezing company assets linked to criminal groups.
However, the move generates concerns about economic repercussions and possible international diplomatic fallout. Broadening the terrorism definition could invite sanctions and complicate Brazil’s international relations, especially with countries upholding strict anti-terror legislation that may extend to Brazilian entities. This could hamper Brazil’s efforts to attract foreign capital and sustain financial market stability.
Looking forward, should the anti-faction bill pass with the classification of criminal groups as terrorist entities, Brazil might witness a fundamental shift in law enforcement and judicial proceedings, integrating enhanced counterterrorism intelligence, surveillance, and operational protocols. Nevertheless, the increased militarization risks provoking escalated violence and human rights controversies, especially in favelas where factions are entrenched.
The legislative outcome will also influence Brazil’s political landscape ahead of the 2026 elections, with public security policy increasingly a pivotal electoral issue. The nuanced debate between financial disruption versus militarized crackdown reveals contrasting philosophies on governance, state legitimacy, and the rule of law.
In sum, Guilherme Derrite’s proposal to classify criminal factions as terrorist groups encapsulates Brazil’s complex struggle to contain violent organized crime while balancing economic stability, legal clarity, and political consensus. As legislative discussions proceed, close monitoring of institutional responses, sectoral impacts, and social repercussions will be crucial to evaluating this landmark policy shift.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
