Story
Sep 23, 2026
TSE Orders Lula Government to Remove 15 Ministry Posts Amid Election Campaign
The ruling places election-period limits on how Brazil’s federal government publicises its work, while preserving room for essential public-service information. Coverage across the political spectrum agrees on the order’s scope but differs in emphasis: one stresses the alleged promotional character of the posts, while the other underlines that the measure is preliminary and limited.
Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court (TSE) has given the Lula administration 24 hours to remove 15 posts from the websites of six ministries, partially granting a request by presidential candidate Ronaldo Caiado. The disputed material appeared on sites run by the Health, Women, Education, Culture, Social Security, and Labour and Employment ministries.1
The complaint alleged that the government was using official communications during the election period to promote federal programmes, deliveries and ministers. TSE President Kassio Nunes Marques found that the posts crossed the line from service information into prohibited institutional advertising. He said the legal restriction applies once such advertising is identified, “regardless of informative, educational or social-guidance content.”1
The ruling particularly cited Health Ministry posts about expanded specialised SUS care in Belo Horizonte, policy results and Health Minister Alexandre Padilha’s visits. It also covers Education Ministry material on school meals and 11,000 planned university-course places, as well as Culture Ministry posts involving the Rouanet Law, audiovisual funding and the National Culture Plan.2
Both accounts describe the decision as a partial victory for Caiado rather than a blanket restriction on federal communications. Nunes Marques rejected the candidate’s request to halt all news publication or updates across government websites, arguing that a sweeping order could also block necessary guidance to citizens. “The injunction must be restricted to the content specifically identified as prohibited institutional advertising, without preventing legitimate administrative communication,” he wrote.1
The differing emphasis is over what follows. The account focused on the complaint highlights the court’s conclusion that named posts promoted government achievements and individual ministers. The other stresses that the decision is an interim injunction, not a final ruling on the case, and that the government has five days to submit its defence. Election law restricts institutional advertising by public bodies during the three months before voting, though statutory exceptions remain.2