In News:

The recent 17th BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro (2025) has reignited tensions between the United States and the expanding BRICS grouping. Former U.S. President Donald Trump, who remains a dominant figure in Republican politics, has threatened to impose 10% tariffs on all BRICS nations, framing the bloc as a challenge to American economic hegemony. These threats signal a continuation of Trump's confrontational approach to global trade and reflect deeper anxieties about de-dollarisation efforts emerging from the Global South.

Trump’s concerns stem from what he perceives as an "anti-American" orientation of BRICS. The group's discussions around a common currency, increased use of national currencies, and the development of alternative cross-border payment systems have been interpreted by Trump as an attempt to weaken the U.S. dollar’s central role in international finance. This fear has been intensified post the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which saw several countries reconsider their reliance on dollar-based systems like SWIFT, particularly after Russia’s exclusion from them due to Western sanctions.

In response, Trump has floated punitive trade measures: a 10% tariff on BRICS-aligned nations, 50% on Brazil for its domestic political stance, and 30% on South Africa citing trade disputes and minority rights issues. He is also advocating for the Sanctioning Russia Act, 2025, which proposes an astronomical 500% tariff on Russian oil and related products. Such a move could disrupt oil-importing economies like India and China, both of which have deepened energy ties with Moscow in recent years.

However, BRICS leaders have clarified that de-dollarisation is not about dismantling the dollar-based order but about financial diversification and resilience. The Rio Declaration 2025 stopped short of any anti-U.S. language, instead emphasizing interoperability of payment systems and equitable reform of global institutions. This demonstrates a cautious diplomatic approach aimed at asserting economic agency without triggering direct confrontation.

India, in particular, has taken a measured stance. In Parliament, the Indian government distanced itself from suggestions that BRICS was pursuing an aggressive de-dollarisation agenda. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar reiterated that India has no official policy to replace the U.S. dollar, and that BRICS decisions are not monolithic but reflect the diversity of its member states. This is crucial, given India’s strategic balancing between the West and the Global South.

Founded in 2009 amid discontent with Western-dominated financial structures, BRICS has expanded to include 10 members, with new entrants like Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, UAE, and Indonesia. While united by frustration over Western dominance, internal diversity—economic, political, and strategic—ensures that BRICS does not function as a rigid anti-West alliance.

At the Rio summit, BRICS condemned unilateral tariff practices and expressed concern over attacks on Iranian civilian infrastructure, showcasing solidarity without directly naming the U.S. or its allies. This signals a shift toward multilateral diplomacy grounded in soft balancing rather than confrontation.

In conclusion, while Trump’s tariff threats underline U.S. anxiety over shifting global power structures, BRICS’ response suggests a nuanced recalibration of the international order—not a radical overhaul. For India, the challenge remains to harness BRICS for strategic autonomy without undermining its multi-aligned foreign policy posture.