BRICS+ strive to counter Trump's policy in race for global dominance

As BRICS leaders convene in Rio de Janeiro this weekend, the outlook is far from favourable considering US President Donald Trump's open threats of imposing a 100 percent tariff on the 10-nation bloc if they attempt to challenge the global supremacy of the US dollar. Simultaneously, Washington has escalated a global trade war, imposing tariffs on nearly all BRICS countries. As it this was not enough, the fact that one of its members, Iran, has recently faced a fierce military strike from the United States is only adding to the tension.

In light of this intensifying pressure, an article published by Foreign Policy asks whether BRICS can endure under these circumstances and what steps it must take to maintain relevance in a rapidly shifting global landscape.

BRICS remains a loose alignment rather than a formal international institution—a coalition bridging the “global east” (Russia and China) and key global south nations. Originating in 2009 as BRIC (Brazil-Russia-India-China), the group added South Africa to become BRICS, and since 2023, it has expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the UAE, along with a second tier of partner countries. With growing ambition and a pragmatic, flexible approach, BRICS has emerged as a powerful force in global affairs and may yet reshape the international order.

This new BRICS momentum isn’t a revival of outdated Third World unity. Instead, global south countries are joining BRICS to advance shared, strategic goals alongside Russia and China. These goals reflect two dominant global shifts: First, the US-led world order is increasingly unable to address global challenges—exacerbated by Washington’s aggressive tariff regime. Second, the retreat of unipolarity and erratic US foreign policy have undermined American credibility, prompting other nations to diversify alliances and hedge their bets.

So, has BRICS altered the world order? The publication argues that the group’s very formation—without any northern powers—is a bold and unusual experiment. It offers a possible platform for future initiatives and has made consistent statements on economic and geopolitical issues that subtly challenge dominant norms. Symbolically, BRICS stands for a more plural international system.

In practical terms, however, it writes that the group’s impact remains limited. Its biggest achievement lies in development finance, through the Shanghai-based New Development Bank (NDB). Although its annual lending of around $4 billion is modest compared to the World Bank, the NDB has established itself as a credible lender over the past decade. It offers innovative governance models—eschewing any single dominant shareholder, rotating its presidency among founding members, and applying each country’s own labor and environmental standards in projects.

As the summit opens in Rio, Brazil—this year’s host—has emphasized south-south cooperation, health equity, climate action, and strengthening multilateralism. Notably, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin will be absent, presenting a unique opportunity for the global south to take the lead within the bloc.

Paradoxically, the “America First” doctrine bolsters the case for BRICS. According to the article, the US’s growing unilateralism and disregard for international law in areas like trade and Middle East policy reinforce the need for a balancing force to uphold cooperation and global norms. For developing countries, which depend more heavily on international rules and stability, this counterbalance is vital for ensuring economic and political security.

Still, the confrontational stance from Washington signals that BRICS must navigate cautiously if it wants to avoid being destabilized. The FP article cautions that this demands a deliberate strategy focused on reassurance to skeptics, retrenchment from overreach, and reinforcement of core institutions to ensure long-term viability.

By Nazrin Sadigova