Às 10h50 de 23 de julho de 2026, o diretor-geral da Polícia Federal (PF), Andrei Rodrigues, enviou um ofício sigiloso ao advogado-geral da União, Jorge Messias. No documento, obtido com exclusividade pela Agência Pública, pedia-se que a Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU) analisasse e tomasse “as eventuais providências cabíveis” contra uma decisão do ministro André Mendonça, então relator do caso Master no Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF). A resposta, registrada em nota jurídica também sigilosa, foi negativa: segundo a AGU, não havia nenhuma medida judicial possível.
O pedido precedeu a fase mais aguda da crise que, em setembro, pôs ministros do Supremo em confronto e levou ao afastamento de Andrei do cargo, em decisão de André Mendonça — posteriormente revertida por Flávio Dino e mantida por Edson Fachin. Segundo integrantes do alto escalão do governo, ouvidos sob reserva pela reportagem, a negativa da AGU ao ofício teria tido o aval também da cúpula jurídica do governo e foi emitida antes da divulgação das mensagens atribuídas ao ex-banqueiro Daniel Vorcaro e ao ministro Alexandre de Moraes, que se tornaram públicas em 8 de setembro, quando Mendonça retirou o sigilo de parte das investigações do Banco Master.
Fontes do alto escalão disseram à Pública que a cúpula da AGU teria se sentido pressionada por Rodrigues com o envio do ofício e que a história teria chegado até a presidência da República. Uma reportagem da Folha de S. Paulo, publicada em 2 de setembro, relatou que a PF via uma “omissão” da AGU em relação à crise envolvendo o ministro André Mendonça.
A Pública apurou que o Advogado-geral da União, Jorge Messias, e o ministro da Justiça e Segurança Pública, Wellington César Lima e Silva, se encontraram com André Mendonça, fora da agenda, após tomarem conhecimento do pedido da PF. No encontro entre os três, os representantes do governo buscaram uma “interlocução” para resolver o embate, mas a exposição das conversas direcionadas a Moraes, que vieram depois do encontro, afastou os governistas do caso para evitar uma associação pública do governo à crise no Supremo.
Nesta quarta-feira, 23 de setembro, reportagem de Marcela Mattos no UOL informa que Messias e Andrei trocaram xingamentos diante de Lula: ‘Está me espionando?’. Segundo o UOL, pessoas que ouviram relatos do episódio disseram que a conversa, acompanhada a todo momento por Lula, foi “dura”, “tensa” e “ríspida”. A cobrança foi considerada a gota d’água de uma série de divergências que vinham se arrastando nos bastidores das investigações sobre o Banco Master.
Procurada, a AGU informou a Pública que “as informações apresentadas na matéria do UOL não são precisas. Divergências são naturais, evidentemente, mas nada se sobrepõe ao respeito e à consideração que o advogado-geral da União, Jorge Messias, tem pelo diretor-geral da Polícia Federal, Andrei Rodrigues, tanto no âmbito pessoal quanto institucional”
Procurada, a Polícia Federal não deu retorno até a publicação. O espaço segue aberto para manifestação.
André Mendonça herdou o caso Master de Dias Toffoli em fevereiro deste ano. Nas primeiras decisões como relator, em 19 de fevereiro, o ministro determinou que apenas os policiais diretamente envolvidos na investigação tivessem acesso às informações, com sigilo “inclusive em relação aos superiores hierárquicos”, o que incluiria Andrei Rodrigues. Seria um movimento para limitar a influência do diretor-geral na apuração, vista com desconfiança pela ala de André Mendonça. Nos bastidores, teria pesado a percepção de Mendonça de que informações sensíveis chegavam antes ao comando da PF, o que passou a causar “um certo desconforto”, segundo uma fonte do STF, até mesmo entre os juízes lotados no gabinete do ministro.
Em 22 de maio, na investigação sobre fraudes no INSS (Operação Sem Desconto), da qual Mendonça também era o relator, o ministro teria reagido a uma mudança na chefia do caso e exigido ser avisado de qualquer nova alteração na equipe. Em 15 de maio, na semana anterior à exigência de Mendonça, o comando da PF trocou a área responsável pelos inquéritos do INSS: o caso foi transferido da Divisão de Repressão a Crimes Previdenciários (DPrev) para a Coordenação de Inquéritos em Tribunais Superiores (Cinq). Simultaneamente, o delegado que chefiava a operação, Guilherme da Silva, solicitou transferência para Minas Gerais, estado natal dele. À época, a PF não revelou o nome do novo chefe da operação e justificou que a mudança assegurava “maior eficiência e continuidade das investigações”.
Em 13 de julho, Mendonça repetiu a ordem no caso Master (Operação Compliance Zero): a equipe de investigadores deveria ser mantida e qualquer troca deveria ser comunicada a ele previamente; as informações também deveriam ficar restritas às coordenações responsáveis, e o material bruto extraído de celulares e computadores apreendidos deveria ser enviado ao seu gabinete.
Dez dias depois, em 23 de julho, Andrei oficiou à AGU com direcionamento a Jorge Messias, conforme o documento obtido pela Pública. O documento da PF registra que não há “qualquer indício de irregularidade” nas investigações e classifica como “desarrazoada” uma decisão que limitasse as atribuições administrativas da PF. O documento registra, ainda, que o controle externo da polícia cabe ao Ministério Público Federal. No pedido, foi citada a decisão de Mendonça de maio como “de conteúdo semelhante”, na qual se fundamentou na lei que permite à AGU defender, na Justiça, agentes públicos por atos praticados no exercício do cargo.
O ofício foi enviado à Secretaria-Geral de Contencioso, braço da AGU que representa a União no STF. Em 24 de julho, uma reunião no gabinete do advogado-geral substituto apontou os primeiros problemas do pedido: a repercussão na imprensa sobre o incômodo da PF, no dia anterior, tratava da decisão de maio, não da de julho; faltavam documentos; e a AGU nem sequer tinha acesso aos processos em sigilo, apenas às cópias das decisões.
A nota registra ainda que, segundo a própria PF, informou à AGU em 27 de julho que o material bruto relacionado a Vorcaro já havia sido entregue ao gabinete do relator na semana anterior.
A Nota Jurídica enumera os motivos da recusa ao pedido da PF. Primeiro, diz que não se tratava de defender um agente público. Segundo, registrou que a AGU não atua em investigação criminal, tarefa do Ministério Público. Terceiro, avaliou que a PF não demonstrou “prejuízo concreto” decorrente da exigência de avisar sobre trocas na equipe. E, quarto, a PF perdeu o prazo: as regras já estavam na decisão de maio, e a de sigilo interno vinha desde o início do caso, sem que a PF recorresse. A nota menciona “inércia prolongada da autoridade policial” e afirma que uma nova decisão não reabriria o prazo já vencido. Por fim, como o material já havia sido entregue, não haveria o que suspender.
Na resposta à PF, a AGU sugeriu dois caminhos: conversar diretamente com o relator ou levar o caso ao Ministério Público Federal. As páginas obtidas pela reportagem não mostram a data de assinatura da nota.
Segundo a Folha de S.Paulo, Mendonça teria dito ao presidente do STF, Edson Fachin, no início de agosto, que suspeitava de viés político de Andrei Rodrigues para blindar a campanha de Lula; Andrei teria relatado a Fachin a suspeita inversa, de que o ministro prejudicava a esquerda e aliviava aliados de Flávio Bolsonaro (PL).
No início de setembro, Mendonça levantou o sigilo do relatório que continha mensagens enviadas por Vorcaro a um interlocutor identificado como “Alexandre de Moraes Brasília”. A maior parte das mensagens foi enviada em visualização única e aponta para a troca de informações sobre uma possível operação contra o ex-banqueiro. Em 15 de novembro, dois dias antes de ser preso, Vorcaro perguntou a Moraes: “Acha que na segunda já tenho que estar fora?”.
Os investigadores também encontraram registros digitais e metadados que indicam que Moraes atuou na edição de um contrato de R$ 130 milhões firmado entre Vorcaro e o escritório de advocacia da esposa do ministro, Viviane Barci de Moraes. Após a revelação do acordo, o escritório Barci de Moraes divulgou uma nota negando a existência de impedimentos legais à contratação.
A partir de então, a crise no STF escalou, como a Pública mostrou ao longo de sua cobertura do caso. A sessão do STF para julgamento das suspeitas contra Alexandre de Moraes foi iniciada em 15 de setembro e marcada por bate-bocas e trocas de acusações entre os magistrados. A deliberação foi adiada após o ministro Flávio Dino pedir vistas do processo. Ou seja, mais tempo para analisar o caso, que segue sem definição.
The crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln touched American soil for the first time in nine months, when the strike group pulled into Apra Harbor, Guam, for a brief logistics stop and on-base liberty. The supercarrier, alongside guided-missile destroyer USS Frank E. Petersen Jr., arrived on September 19 and left the next day. Lincoln is 307 days into her deployment, 19 short of the record set earlier this year by the USS Gerald R. Ford, and is now just weeks away from San Diego. Meanwhile, two flattops are on station in the Middle East supporting blockade operations, and the USS Ronald Reagan has rejoined the fleet after an extended maintenance availability.
Here’s TWZ’s weekly carrier tracker monitoring America’s flattop fleet, including deployed Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARG), using publicly available open-source information. Check out our last report here.
The USS Abraham Lincoln is currently conducting routine operations at an undisclosed location in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of responsibility (AOR), presumably steaming east en route to her homeport at Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego. After leaving Thailand on September 6 following a five-day liberty port call, Lincoln topped off the Petersen Jr. in the Gulf of Thailand and linked up with two Royal Australian Navy frigates for joint training in the South China Sea. Publicly available flight tracking data shows the carrier transited the Balabac Strait eastbound around September 13, and the Surigao Strait northbound two days later to enter the Philippine Sea. After going dark for a few days, she resurfaced in Guam and moored at Kilo Wharf over the weekend.
“Due to the brief nature of the logistics stop, the crew were afforded on-base liberty to access base services and attend a Navy Entertainment-sponsored concert,” CSG-3 spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Tyler Barker wrote in an email to Stars and Stripes. The carrier took on stores, mail, and equipment, according to Barker, and 13 Fleet and Family counselors are now aboard to run return-and-reunion classes but “the crew and ship remain focused and ready.”
A homecoming date has not been announced publicly. Unless Lincoln makes another stop (in Hawaii, for example) or conducts additional training on the way, she should arrive in early October just shy of Ford’s record. The Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Daryl Caudle, said in June that Lincoln would likely shift her homeport to Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton in Washington state, which aligns with TWZ’s reporting that she is expected to begin a Drydocking Planned Incremental Availability (DPIA) after returning stateside. The timeline for the DPIA is unclear.
The American public got a rare look at ongoing combat operations aboard the USS George Washington when two reporters embarked earlier this month. Fox News’ Trey Yingst and CBS News’ Tom Hanson reported live from the flight deck, as F-35C Lightning IIs and F/A-18E/F Super Hornets launched behind them, in hits that aired September 11 to 14. The only other publicized media embark since the war began on February 28 went to CNN’s Pamela Brown, who reported on the conditions aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln while the flattop was still in theater.
“Last weekend, the aircraft carrier came under Iranian missile attack; the first of three attacks on US warships in the last week alone,” Yingst said, indicating it was the USS George Washington, and not the USS George H.W. Bush, that was targeted by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in early September. The Navy declined to comment when TWZ asked which carrier was targeted after Iranian state media claimed the strike had been successful. “We’re pretty much employing all our capabilities right now,” Washington’s commanding officer (CO), Capt. Nicholas DeLeo, told Yingst.
“The GW is surrounded by four to five guided-missile destroyers at any moment,” Yingst also reported. He flew out to USS Shoup, positioned off the starboard side at the time, to make the point and speak with the warship’s CO. Shoup is the only destroyer officially confirmed to be part of CSG-5. “My ship is in charge of coordinating defense amongst the various other units, allocating defensive assets to it, be it potentially a missile to shoot something down or just aircraft to go identify and monitor the picture,” Capt. William Buford said. Based on that description, Shoup’s CO appears to be coordinating Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) for the strike group, a question we’ve been asking the Navy to confirm. TWZ understands additional destroyers operating in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) AOR are also escorting Washington, but a U.S. official declined to say which ones.
Hanson asked DeLeo about the recent IRGC ballistic missile threat targeting Navy ships in the region. “We have a variety of ways to protect, both offensively and defensively, a Navy ship, and we employ all these methods,” he told the network. “It’s something that we train to.” Hanson also pressed the commander of CSG-5, Rear Adm. Jeff Heames, on whether he was concerned about the munitions stockpile, a dynamic TWZ detailed in a special feature yesterday. “Of course we’re concerned about the expenditure to some degree, but I have no concerns locally at my level here,” Heames replied.
In addition to Washington, Bush is still working the blockade from the Arabian Sea, nearly six months into her deployment. As of CENTCOM’s latest social media update on September 21, U.S. forces in the region had redirected 110 commercial vessels to ensure “total compliance” with the blockade. More than 50 ships “supporting humanitarian efforts” have been allowed through, according to the command. CENTCOM recently stopped publishing the number of ships boarded, seized, or disabled kinetically.
The USS Ronald Reagan is officially back. The Navy, in a recent statement, confirmed the flattop “returned to the fleet capable and mission-ready.” The carrier had been out of action since March 2025 for a DPIA at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Washington state and completed four days of sea trials in early September. While the Navy does not comment on upcoming deployments due to operational security, current speculation points to a spring 2027 deployment, but that is not confirmed.
Reagan is the only carrier currently homeported at Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton in Washington. Previously, she was America’s only forward-deployed carrier based in Yokosuka, Japan, until swapping hulls with the USS George Washington in 2024. USS Nimitz was stationed at Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton before circumnavigating South America to Naval Station Norfolk this summer, where she is being used primarily for training before deactivation in 2027. The yet-to-be-commissioned PCU John F. Kennedy, the second and newest Ford class supercarrier, is slated to homeport in Washington state no earlier than 2029.
Overall, three U.S. carriers are deployed (with one heading home), one is preparing to deploy in the near term, three are working up in various states of readiness, three are in current or upcoming maintenance, and one is being used primarily for training before deactivation next year. One amphibious ready group is deployed, one is forward-stationed and in port, four are working up or in port, and three are in maintenance.
Note: Positions are general approximations. Non-deployed LHA/LHD amphibious warships are not shown.
Contact the author: ian.ellis-jones@recurrent.io or @ianellisjones
The post Where Are The Aircraft Carriers?: September 23, 2026 appeared first on TWZ.
In July 1952, reports of a railway disaster in Poland began circulating in the Western media. According to these reports, a Soviet military train derailed near the Polish town of Rzepin on 9 July 1952, killing around 160 Red Army soldiers who were returning to the Soviet Union. The train reportedly left the tracks between Rzepin and Boczów and plunged into a lake. What makes this alleged accident interesting is the uncertainty surrounding whether it actually happened.
The accident as reported by various western newspapers. Credit. Newspaper.com
On September 20, 2006, Hugo Chávez stepped up to the granite podium of the United Nations General Assembly. A day earlier, from that exact same spot, the President of the United States, George W. Bush, had spoken. Chávez crossed himself, said that the room still smelled of sulphur, and the hall burst into laughter and applause. It was not the speech Chávez had originally intended to give, but rather the direct result of the deep indignation caused by hearing Bush speak as if he owned the world. The major media of the North latched onto the sulphur phrase and have tried to caricature it. But it is the rest of his intervention that remains fully relevant, 20 years later.
Chávez arrived at the General Assembly with a book in hand, “Hegemony or Survival” by Noam Chomsky. His warning was simple yet devastating: the United States’s pretense of dominating the world put the very survival of the human species at risk. At that time, US troops were occupying Iraq. A few weeks earlier, Israel had bombed Lebanon under Washington’s diplomatic protection. In the capitals of the global north, the “end of history” was still being celebrated, the idea that liberal capitalism was humanity’s definitive horizon. Chávez said that this thesis had been proven false in barely a decade, and that now the future of the world had to be defined.
Twenty years later, plunged into an even greater systemic crisis, we can see that every phrase of Chávez’s speech remains relevant.
In 2006, the United States seemed like an empire at the peak of its power. Today it is an empire in relative decline, and therefore more dangerous. The Tricontinental Institute for Social Research has called this new stage hyper-imperialism: imperialism exercised in an exaggerated and agitated manner by a power that compensates for the loss of its economic hegemony by relying on the two areas where it still dominates, war and the control of information.
An empire’s hegemony is usually lost in three stages: first in production, then in finance, and finally in the military. The United States has already lost productive primacy: China is today the world’s largest economy measured by purchasing power parity. The reign of the dollar is beginning to be questioned, and many countries are opting for transactions in their own currencies. But military supremacy remains intact. The bloc led by Washington groups around 50 countries and concentrates about three-quarters of global military spending. The United States maintains around 900 military bases abroad. More than one in four countries on the planet lives under its sanctions.
An empire that declines economically while retaining its weapons is tempted to resolve its decline by force. The dilemma that Chávez borrowed from Chomsky, hegemony or survival, has become literal. Permanent war and climate catastrophe today threaten the very conditions of life.
The least-cited part of the speech was perhaps the most prophetic. Chávez stated that the United Nations system born after World War II had collapsed. The General Assembly had become a merely deliberative space, without the capacity to change the terrible reality of the world. Back then, Chávez made four concrete proposals:
First, expand the Security Council to include Third World countries as permanent members. Second, create transparent methods for conflict resolution. Third, eliminate the veto, and fourth, strengthen the General Secretariat.
His example was Lebanon: a US veto had allowed the country to be torn apart before the eyes of the world. Unfortunately, over two decades, the UN’s strength to prevent wars and genocides has progressively diminished. That same mechanism criticized by Chávez has allowed a new genocide in Gaza. That inaction of multilateralism permitted the kidnapping of the sitting Venezuelan president. However, the conclusion is not to abandon the UN, but to contest it.
The debate on a “multipolarity” that reproduces rivalry between great powers is insufficient. What the South needs is true multilateralism, defending the United Nations Charter as the common heritage of the world’s peoples. It is the same Charter upon which, in 1955, the ten principles of the Bandung Conference were built.
Chávez did not arrive in New York alone. He came from Havana, where more than fifty heads of state had just relaunched the Non-Aligned Movement. “Havana was the capital of the South for a week,” he said. And then he added a phrase that sums up a political identity: “we are men and women of the South.”
The Global South is not a cardinal point. Australia is in the southern hemisphere and belongs to the North; Cuba, Vietnam, or Burkina Faso are in the northern hemisphere and belong to the South. It is a historical category: they are the peoples of former colonies and semi-colonies and socialist projects, whose struggle for sovereignty has not yet concluded. Their weight has changed. By 2007, the economies of the South surpassed those of the North in purchasing power parity, and in recent years they came to represent nearly 60 percent of world product. BRICS and the Belt and Road Initiative have begun to create something that did not exist in Bandung’s time: material conditions for cooperation among the peoples of the South.
But, although there is a new mood in the Global South today, the spirit of Bandung is not yet there. In 1955, the strength of those governments came from organized masses that prevented them from abandoning the liberation program. Chávez’s speech was precisely that: the voice of Latin American twenty-first-century socialism, of peoples pushing their governments. It was, for Latin America, a kind of Bandung from below. Today, that spirit faces an “angry tide” and needs to be rebuilt.
There is a fundamental element in that 2006 speech that we cannot forget. Chávez distinguished between the US government and its people. He said that if one walked through the Bronx or San Francisco, one would find people who want peace. The working class of the North, impoverished and battered by deindustrialization, is not the enemy of the peoples of the South. It is a possible ally. Specially today when it is persecuted by a renewed McCarthyism that sees terrorism in those who raise their voices for social justice.
When Bush accused those who opposed his war of being extremists, Chávez replied that it was not about extremism: the world was awakening and peoples were rising everywhere. Today, aggression takes multiple forms. It takes the face of military actions, lawfare, unilateral coercive measures, or the confiscation of national resources. But its objective remains the same: to discipline anyone attempting a sovereign path.
The speech closed on a note of optimism. Chávez said that there was a dawn on the planet, visible in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Twenty years later, that optimism requires precision. The future is not a date on the calendar, but a rupture that must be built. Hope is not passive expectation, but a practice that requires organization, discipline, and internationalism.
The sulphur that Chávez smelled in 2006 has not dissipated; it has grown denser and spread beyond the diplomatic corridors of New York. That is why that speech does not belong to a record of the past, but to our current agenda. It reminds us that the South has a voice, that the UN can and must be contested, and that the North’s hegemony is not a natural law. What is missing, as in Bandung, is what has always made the difference: the peoples must organize.
Carlos Ron is Co-coordinator of the Nuestra America office of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He was a Venezuelan diplomat and served as Vice Minister for North America (2018-2025).
This article was produced by Globetrotter.
Login