In a bold and controversial statement, former U.S. president Donald Trump described the BRICS coalition as “anti-American” and warned of an additional 10% tariff on any country aligning with its economic or geopolitical stance. The warning, posted on his Truth Social account, comes as more nations explore ways to reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar — a key priority within BRICS.
Trump has previously threatened 100% tariffs on BRICS members should they push further toward de-dollarisation. The remarks raise the spectre of a return to aggressive trade policies, echoing the tariff wars of his first term, particularly against China.
What is BRICS, and why does it matter?
Originally comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, BRICS has expanded to include Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, the UAE and Indonesia — now a 10-member grouping that represents:
- 45% of the global population
- Over 35% of world GDP
What began as a south-south development initiative has evolved into an agenda of greater financial autonomy, including dollar-free bilateral trade and discussions on a common payment system.
Tariffs as a political weapon
Trump’s warning suggests he is ready to use tariffs as leverage to counter de-dollarisation. Though no formal plan has been tabled, it reportedly targets:
- Energy trade in local currencies: Oil and gas deals in yuan and rouble between Russia and China.
- India-UAE rupee-dirham settlements: Already bypassing the dollar in bilateral trade.
- Financial channels: Iran and Russia promoting systems to bypass SWIFT sanctions.
The message is clear — any attempt to dilute the dollar’s dominance will invite U.S. retaliation, tariffs included, even if it affects allies.
Why this has stirred controversy
Critics argue Trump’s stance is:
- Economically risky: Higher costs for American consumers and disruption of supply chains.
- Geopolitically divisive: Targeting countries for non-dollar trade risks alienating partners.
- Strategically defensive: Reflects U.S. anxiety over a rising multipolar global system.
Supporters, however, call it a protective measure to safeguard American influence in trade and finance.
FAQs
Q: Why did Trump call BRICS ‘anti-American’?
Because BRICS is pushing to reduce U.S. dollar dominance in global trade and finance, which Trump views as undermining U.S. power.
Q: What is the 10% tariff threat?
Any country aligning with BRICS’ de-dollarisation push could face a 10% tariff on exports to the U.S.
Q: Is this legally enforceable?
If re-elected, Trump could impose tariffs under executive authority or invoke “national security” provisions, as he did in 2018.
Q: Is de-dollarisation already happening?
Yes. Countries like China, Russia and India are increasingly settling trade in local currencies to bypass dollar-based systems.
Q: Could this spark a new trade war?
Potentially. Analysts warn of heightened tensions, particularly with U.S. allies such as the UAE and Indonesia now inside BRICS.
Trump Labels BRICS ‘Anti-American,’ Renews 10% Tariff Warning
In a bold and controversial statement, former U.S. president Donald Trump described the BRICS coalition as “anti-American” and warned of an additional 10% tariff on any country aligning with its economic or geopolitical stance. The warning, posted on his Truth Social account, comes as more nations explore ways to reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar — a key priority within BRICS.
Trump has previously threatened 100% tariffs on BRICS members should they push further toward de-dollarisation. The remarks raise the spectre of a return to aggressive trade policies, echoing the tariff wars of his first term, particularly against China.
Final thoughts
The BRICS controversy underlines how currency politics has become the new front in global power struggles. With the bloc expanding in size and ambition, Washington is rattled by talk of a less dollar-centric world.
But using tariffs to counter de-dollarisation may prove self-defeating. Rather than isolating BRICS, Trump’s threats could accelerate its push for financial sovereignty and multi-currency trade.
The bigger question is whether the U.S. is prepared for a world where its financial clout is no longer taken for granted — and whether acting like an economic bully is the right answer to new realities.
