Trump may be BRICS’s best recruitment agent | Opinions
Trump’s Tariff Threats May Foster BRICS Unity Despite Differences
United States President Donald Trump has openly expressed his opposition to the BRICS bloc, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and several other nations. Last year, he threatened to impose an additional 10 percent tariff on countries he accused of adopting “anti-American policies.” Since that statement, the Trump administration has aggressively enforced tariffs against various trading partners, including BRICS members.
The administration’s message appears clear: nations that challenge U.S. economic power will face consequences. However, as BRICS leaders convene in New Delhi, Trump’s approach may inadvertently strengthen the incentives for these diverse nations to collaborate economically in response to perceived U.S. coercion.
The 11 members of BRICS—Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates—have profound political and economic differences. Collectively, they comprise nearly half of the world’s population and approximately 40 percent of global GDP. Despite their economic heft, they lack a unified ideological or geopolitical stance.
Recent tensions among member states highlight these divisions. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are entrenched in a regional conflict. This was evident in May when representatives from Iran and the UAE clashed during a meeting in New Delhi. Additionally, India and China engaged in a heated border dispute that resulted in fatalities in 2020 and 2021, only recently beginning to stabilize their relationship.
While Trump’s tariffs are unlikely to unify these nations against the United States, they may provide a common motive for BRICS countries to cooperate economically—specifically, to shield themselves from U.S. economic influence.
For countries outside the Western economic sphere, reliance on U.S.-centric financial systems presents inherent risks. The U.S. dollar’s dominance grants the United States significant structural advantages, as international transactions are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. This can restrict access to U.S. markets and isolate nations through sanctions.
BRICS efforts to lessen dependence on the U.S. financial system are evident, though they do not indicate an imminent decline of the dollar as the global reserve currency. The International Monetary Fund reports that the dollar comprised 57.1 percent of global foreign-exchange reserves in the first quarter of 2026, with the Chinese renminbi at a mere 2 percent. Notably, the dollar’s share has slightly increased during that period.
However, efforts to reduce reliance on the dollar differ from outright replacement. BRICS nations are already exploring alternatives. For instance, South Africa has connected to China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System for transactions settled directly in renminbi. Brazil and China are increasingly using their currencies for bilateral trade, while India and the UAE are settling transactions in rupees and dirhams. Additionally, China and Russia are shifting much of their bilateral trade to their own currencies.
The bloc is also moving toward greater financial connectivity. Recently, BRICS leaders advocated for a cross-border payments initiative and better interoperability of payment systems among member states. Reserve Bank of India Governor Sanjay Malhotra confirmed that discussions are underway to link fast-payment networks and explore central bank digital currencies. India is also promoting the use of the rupee in international trade.
The New Development Bank, established by BRICS nations as an alternative source of development finance, aims to increase lending in local currencies to reduce exposure to foreign-exchange risks. Its goal targets 30 percent of financing in local currencies, which could rise to as much as 40 to 50 percent by the 2027-2031 cycle.
While these initiatives do not constitute a rival global financial system, they signify an important shift toward alternatives that allow countries and businesses to conduct transactions without full reliance on the dollar and U.S.-dominated financial infrastructure.
Trump’s policies may accelerate this shift. For example, the U.S. recently imposed a 25 percent tariff on Brazilian goods, impacting billions in exports while the country maintains a trade surplus with the United States. Furthermore, the administration has scrutinized Brazil’s successful Pix instant-payment system, which competes with established payment networks.
Sanctions have similarly pushed countries like Russia and Iran to seek alternative trading arrangements due to restrictions imposed on their access to Western financial networks. The U.S. is also considering new measures that could affect nations reliant on Russian energy, including China and India.
Despite the differences among BRICS countries, there is a shared understanding of the vulnerabilities associated with heavy dependence on U.S. financial power. The U.S. does not merely rely on its economic might; it also depends on other countries perceiving involvement in a U.S.-centric system as advantageous. As the U.S. increasingly uses this system as an instrument of coercion, it could bolster the incentive for nations to develop alternatives.
Most BRICS countries, however, are not inclined to swap dependence on the United States for reliance on China. India maintains strong ties with the U.S. while engaging in energy purchases from Russia and fostering closer economic collaboration within BRICS. Brazil seeks greater autonomy without becoming overly aligned with Beijing. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and the UAE remain intertwined with Western economies even as they expand their relationships with China.
Ultimately, their goal may not be to replace one hegemonic power with another but rather to enhance their ability to navigate competing global powers. This differentiation is crucial; transactions conducted in local currencies or alternative payment systems do not threaten dollar dominance on their own. But when multiplied across nations over time, such arrangements could lower the costs associated with rejecting U.S. influence.
Portraying BRICS merely as an anti-U.S. coalition risks becoming counterproductive. Penalizing countries for pursuing alternatives may only reinforce their resolve to seek such pathways. In attempting to impose costly challenges to U.S. power, Trump may unintentionally render dependence on the United States even more costly.
