Alceu Moreira is a Brazilian congressman who specializes in agricultural issues. He told the New York Times that U.S. Ambassador Todd Chapman made repeated reference to the American political calendar in recent meetings in which tariffs on ethanol were discussed.

“He said, ‘You know, we have elections in the United States, and that this is very important,’” Mr. Moreira said, recounting their conversation. “He said this four or five times.”

Separately, the Brazilian newspaper O Globo, published an article on Thursday alleging that Chapman has been emphasizing “the importance to the Brazilian government of keeping Donald Trump” in office. On Friday, the Brazilian newspaper Estadão confirmed that “the ambassador framed his argument against tariffs in partisan terms.” Overall, the New York Times reports “Chapman has made it clear to Brazilian officials they could bolster Mr. Trump’s electoral chances in Iowa if Brazil lifted its ethanol tariffs.”

Considering that President Trump was impeached earlier this year for soliciting and trying to coerce foreign aid from Ukraine to help him in the upcoming election, it’s obviously a touchy issue for members of the State Department to be explicitly seeking assistance from Brazil in winning Iowa.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee is already involved:

In a letter sent Friday afternoon, Committee Chairman Eliot L. Engel demanded that the ambassador, Todd Chapman, produce “any and all documents referring or related to any discussions” he has held with Brazilian officials in recent weeks about their nation’s tariffs on ethanol, an important agricultural export for Iowa, a potential swing state in the American presidential election.

Rep. Engel noted that this is inappropriate behavior and that diplomats are trained to avoid the appearance of partisanship. But this is not a Ukrainian-type scandal. Lowering ethanol tariffs is a bipartisan goal of the American government. It would be perfectly fine for Ambassador Chapman to argue that the policy change would please President Trump and lead to reciprocal benefits. This is more a case where a “wink and  a nod” is required for good taste than an example of some abuse of power.

It’s a problem when the president, for the sole purpose of benefiting politically or financially, seeks concessions that run counter to American interests and the policy of his own National Security Council and State Department. That’s what occurred in Ukraine, and it also explicitly involved his presumed (and now confirmed) opponent in 2020.

Ambassador Chapman was acting in a crass manner, and by asking in such partisan terms, Brazilian officials couldn’t comply without risking damage to relations with a possible Biden administration and Democrats in Congress. He absolutely should not do that, and he deserves a strong reprimand. No one should ask him to do this either, although I don’t see a problem with trying to complete a deal in time for the administration to see some benefit in the election.

You probably won’t be surprised to learn that none of this would have happened if Trump hadn’t welshed on a deal with Brazil.

Currently, American ethanol companies can sell up to 750 million liters of ethanol to Brazil per year without paying tariffs. Any sales beyond that are subject to a 20 percent tax. The Brazilian government raised the tariff-free cap last September from 600 million liters — a gesture intended to give Brazilian sugar producers greater access to the American market.

Mr. Trump hailed that move, calling it “great progress for our Farmers.”

But Washington did not make good on the sugar access, which left the Brazilians feeling embittered.

The current ethanol tariff framework is set to expire in August. If the two countries don’t reach a deal, Brazil will apply a 20 percent tax to all ethanol imports, a blow to an industry that is pleading for government bailouts.

Ethanol producers in Brazil want the tariff to remain or be strengthened, and sugar producers are livid that that America reneged on the deal. That puts Brazilian lawmakers in a bind because helping Trump doesn’t make political sense of them, but their president, Jair Bolsonaro, is a huge supporter of our president.

So, this is less a matter of Trump trying to please Iowa farmers than it is of him trying to avoid their wrath. It’s another example of his bungling presidency, but it doesn’t by itself rise to the level of a serious scandal.