An American Base in Brazil? A U.S. Gibraltar?

Then suddenly a strange news story pops up, spreading across different media outlets with a tone reminiscent of Trump staking a claim to territory: blogs and radio stations reporting an alleged American interest (specifically Trump’s) in unrestricted use of the Natal air base. The arguments revolve around the “massive investments” made in the area, used as an advanced U.S. base. During World War II, the base saw intense Allied aircraft movement, serving as a vital stopover once the United States entered the war. Natal grew significantly during this period, and the base was largely built with American dollars: facilities, runways… It was a time when the city developed a distinct identity due to the strong American military presence, which brought money, customs, and left behind descendants. The area around the base evolved into today’s city of Parnamirim, adjacent to Natal and now the second largest in the state.

We are still the “corner of the continent,” a location often described as strategic but never really leveraged by any Brazilian president since the war as a hub between continents. That role was shifted to larger cities like Recife and Fortaleza. And then, suddenly, comes Trump. If this interest is indeed real, it could only have come from his own mind, thinking: “I want that base we built in Brazil during World War II.”

And as surreal as it may seem, the possibility that the U.S. genuinely wants control over the Natal air base isn’t that far-fetched, considering past behavior—like the proposal to buy Greenland, which sounded like a joke but was in fact serious. In Natal’s case, there’s no talk of annexing the city, but rather of using the base, possibly without any Brazilian oversight. The facility would function like an “American Gibraltar,” or a “Guantánamo without prisoners.” As conspiratorial as it may sound, it aligns with the mindset of someone who once entertained the idea of annexing Canada and Greenland.

The thing is, the Brazilian government shows no sympathy for Trump, and even if it did, it wouldn’t make sense to allow a foreign country to take control of national territory—something that could attract enemies to Brazil without any real benefit for us. It’s not worth the risk, nor the stain of lost sovereignty. Even if the Americans claim they built the base, you don’t extract territory from a nation just because another country funded some construction. And the current base is a far cry from its World War II peak: it has been renovated, rebuilt, and partially demolished. Yes, Natal was important to the Americans, but it also benefited in return. There’s a historical balance between both sides’ gains. Let’s not forget: what the U.S. built here was to win their own war. Natal was lucky for them—not a debt we owe.

Hostile Occupation or Bilateral Agreement?

That’s the complex question. Everything suggests the U.S. would prefer it to look like an agreement. But if that’s not possible, it seems like they’d go ahead anyway. I’m not saying it will happen—just that it’s a plausible scenario within Trump’s logic of command. It’s hard to imagine Brazil and the U.S. reaching an understanding on this, especially given the ideological distance between the two governments. Our country currently maintains closer ties with America’s rivals, and it’s possible that China would support resistance to the U.S. proposal—maybe even with Putin offering energy partnerships.

Brazil could end up caught in a tug-of-war. Even without direct conflict, the situation could force the country to take a stance, bringing geopolitical consequences across the region. It’s the kind of scenario that could turn Brazil into a stage for a new mini–Cold War, fought over as a strategic base or ally.

Here’s the link to the article published by a trustworthy source, with the initial report:“U.S. seeks strategic access to Fernando de Noronha and Natal, citing historic rights and military investment”https://www.blogdobg.com.br/eua-articulam-acesso-estrategico-a-fernando-de-noronha-e-natal-sob-alegacao-de-direito-historico-e-investimento-belico/

I’m not anti-American, nor do I reject the influence of American films in Brazilian theaters. I consume many of their products, and much of the technology we use daily is American. Cultural influence is, to some extent, an individual choice, and it’s not my place to criticize others for that. Whether through culture or technology, we are constantly in contact with American products. What we want is the end of wars and tariffs. Brazil is in no position to criticize Trump, who seems to be following Brazil’s example of protectionism—taxing imported products that used to be more affordable. This kind of protectionism, even in moderation, only raises the price of quality goods and reduces people’s purchasing power, without bringing real benefits.