US Policy on BRICS: A Temporary Fix or a Strategic Reset?

However, the group’s recent expansion and efforts to challenge the US dollar’s dominance have drawn a sharp response from President Donald Trump, who has threatened tariffs on BRICS nations if they pursue de-dollarisation. Is this hardline stance merely a short-term pressure tactic, or does it signal a deeper shift in US foreign policy?

A Shift in US Perception of BRICS

The BRICS group, a strategic partnership of emerging economies, has transformed from a loose coalition 16 years ago into a more coordinated bloc advocating global governance reform and actively exploring alternatives to the US dollar. Officials in the Biden administration have largely downplayed the group’s relevance. In 2023, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stated that the administration did not see BRICS turning into a geopolitical rival, and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen described moves away from the dollar as a “natural desire to diversify.”

Donald Trump challenged this approach and viewed BRICS as a major threat to US financial hegemony. Even before returning to office, he stated: “The idea that the BRICS Countries are trying to move away from the dollar while we stand by and watch is OVER. We require a commitment from these Countries that they will neither create a new BRICS Currency, nor back any other Currency to replace the mighty U.S. Dollar or, they will face 100% Tariffs, and should expect to say goodbye to selling into the wonderful U.S. Economy.” These threats signaled a fundamental shift in US engagement with BRICS, though their impact has been mixed. The Trump administration has begun formulating a policy that treats BRICS as a unified bloc, effectively raising the cost of de-dollarisation initiatives. This new approach intensified US scrutiny of BRICS’ monetary policies, influencing members’ cost-benefit calculations for deeper monetary integration and potentially also their membership negotiations. India, for example, quickly reaffirmed its commitment to the dollar, while countries like Vietnam and Türkiye—expected to become BRICS partners in January 2025—have held back. Saudi Arabia was supposed to join the group in 2024, but it is still weighing its options, despite BRICS’ efforts to treat it as a full member.

Yet, confusion persists about BRICS’ intentions, structure, and influence. Trump warned BRICS against creating a joint currency, even though the group had already shelved the idea due to internal disagreements. He mistakenly included Spain in BRICS, prompting Spanish officials to correct him, and suggested that the group broke up, despite its continued coordination on numerous fronts and preparations for a major summit in July. President Lula, who chairs BRICS this year, explicitly declared that tariff threats “won’t stop the group’s determination to seek alternative platforms for payments between member countries.”

BRICS in the Context of MAGA Foreign Policy

The debate over a US policy toward BRICS is not just about the group—it is about Washington’s ability to reimagine global order. Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement is about rejuvenation, seeking to return to the country’s foundational interests and use them to redefine the American Dream for the 21st century. In the MAGA narrative, US hegemony is neither expected nor desirable. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio notes: “…it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power (…) that was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually, you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet.” The administration’s discussion of Panama, Greenland, and Canada as potential parts of US territory reflects a vision of multiple powers dominating their respective regional spheres of influence, rather than one focused on global multilateral leadership and international law.

This political moment presents a critical juncture in global governance, where many future scenarios are possible. The Trump administration has withdrawn from important international treaties and organisations, is reviewing remaining US agreements for cuts, and plans to scale back diplomacy. The practice of using coercive economic measures has already facilitated the evolution of BRICS as an alternative economic and multilateral platform. Ongoing US tariff threats incentivise deeper intra-BRICS trade and encourage non-members to engage with BRICS, as strong trade ties are key to membership. Shifting US policy on Ukraine has prompted China to explore closer ties with the EU, potentially paving the way for new alignments in international trade, AI regulation, and possibly BRICS-EU cooperation. In Latin America, President Lula’s invitation to Mexico and Colombia for the BRICS summit may further their engagement.

A major overhaul of US foreign policy was inevitable: a new administration is in office, fresh policy entrepreneurship is needed for the next phase, and AI is reshaping international power dynamics. Today, however, the “BRICS world” is larger than it was during Trump’s first administration, resolute in advancing its monetary initiatives, and firmly multilateral. Its members align with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development—rejected by the United States—which remains central to BRICS’ operations and its outreach to non-members. The group faces various challenges, including difficulties integrating new members, deepening policy coordination in key areas of cooperation, managing internal conflicts, addressing issues related to Russia, and its inability to de-dollarise the New Development Bank. Yet US disengagement from the system presents an opportunity for BRICS to step up and rally other countries around development-based multilateralism, potentially leaving the United States sidelined.

Trump’s development of a US policy on BRICS is timely, but its contours remain fluid. However, pushing back on de-dollarisation and escalating confrontations without a broader multilateral vision could unintentionally strengthen BRICS. If Washington aims to shape the global order or even develop its regional sphere of influence, it must craft a compelling, long-term strategy that meaningfully and respectfully engages its stakeholders.

Dr Mihaela Papa is the Director of Research and a Principal Research Scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for International Studies. Her publications include an analysis of BRICS as a soft balancing coalition (International Affairs, 2025), developing a BRICS Convergence Index (European Journal of International Relations, 2023), and a study of BRICS’ de-dollarisation initiatives (CUP Elements, 2022).

VIEW ORIGINAL ARTICLE