Does the BRICS currency threaten the dollar?
Economists and political analysts suggest that one of the main reasons for Trump's economic rhetoric is the United States' concern that BRICS countries are initiating a strategic plan to undermine the dollar, a process some observers refer to as "de-dollarisation''.
The BRICS grouping includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa and a few other countries that joined in the past couple of years.
It all started in Kazan, Russia, during the 16th BRICS summit last year when these countries unveiled a symbolic BRICS banknote, unleashing hot debate regarding the US dollar's dominance. At the time, Russian President Vladimir Putin emphasised that the dollar is being used as a ''weapon.''
A year before, meanwhile, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva proposed creating a new, common currency in South America to reduce its reliance on the dollar in international trade. India has also been advocating for local currency settlements among BRICS nations.
The unveiling of the BRICS currency bill, featuring the Taj Mahal, added controversy, as the bloc explores challenging the US dollar's global financial power.
Despite research showing that the US dollar remains the primary reserve currency, Trump would take none of that as he continued his criticism of BRICS.
"We are going to require a commitment from these seemingly hostile countries that they will neither create a new BRICS currency, nor back any other currency to replace the mighty US dollar or, they will face 100% Tariffs,'' he wrote in his Social Truth platform in January.
The statement was similar to the one he posted last November.
According to Bloomberg, Brazil and South Africa have criticised Trump separately for his anti-BRICS comments, while India has refrained from responding publicly, signalling that it is walking a fine line in maintaining its relationship with Washington.
Would a BRICS currency threaten the dollar?
Political analyst Anda Mbikwana offers his insights on the issue.
'The unveiling of a symbolic BRICS banknote at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum represents far more than ceremonial posturing — it signals a deliberate escalation in the bloc's strategy to construct alternative financial architectures that could fundamentally reshape global monetary dynamics.
''While critics may dismiss this $200 denomination note as mere symbolism, the careful design choices reveal sophisticated strategic thinking. The front's display of founding member flags alongside the reverse featuring partner nations creates a visual narrative of expanding multipolarity that directly challenges the hierarchical nature of the dollar-dominated system.
''This imagery reinforces BRICS' positioning as what President Putin has characterised as 'non-western' rather than 'anti-western' — a crucial distinction that broadens its appeal across the Global South.'' The Technological Infrastructure Behind De-dollarisation
''The symbolic banknote masks more substantive developments in BRICS' financial infrastructure. Russia's emphasis on blockchain-based payment systems and central bank digital currencies represents a technologically sophisticated approach to circumventing traditional dollar-denominated channels.
''These systems offer practical alternatives to SWIFT and correspondent banking relationships that have become increasingly weaponised through sanctions regimes.''
And how does this directly affect South Africa, one might ask.
Said Mbikwana: ''For South Africa, this development presents both opportunities and challenges. Greater financial integration within BRICS could reduce transaction costs and currency exposure risks in trade with major partners.
''However, it also requires careful navigation of relationships with Western economies that remain crucial for South African exports and investment. The Reserve Bank's approach to central bank digital currency development will become increasingly strategic as these alternative payment systems mature.''
According to Mbikwana, despite BRICS' banknote symbolic significance, fundamental economic realities limit BRICS' ability to quickly displace dollar dominance.
''The United States retains unparalleled capital market depth, institutional credibility, and network effects that have historically proven resilient to challengers. Moreover, internal coordination challenges within BRICS — particularly between China and India — limit the bloc's ability to present a unified monetary alternative.''
The BRICS symbolic banknote, added Mbikwana, should be understood not as an immediate threat to dollar hegemony, but as a manifestation of longer-term structural shifts in global economic governance. ''Its significance lies not in its current form, but in its representation of institutional momentum toward financial multipolarity.
''American opposition to these developments may paradoxically accelerate their adoption by reinforcing perceptions of dollar weaponisation among emerging economies.
''The ultimate question is not whether BRICS can immediately supplant the dollar, but whether it can create sufficient institutional alternatives to reduce the international community's dependence on dollar-denominated systems. In this context, symbolic gestures serve as important markers of political will and institutional capacity — prerequisites for any serious challenge to existing monetary hierarchies.''
The purpose of the banknote will serve as a payment system designed to facilitate transactions within the BRICS bloc using local currencies and potentially central bank digital currencies.
While a BRICS currency could potentially challenge the US dollar's dominance, it's unlikely to replace it entirely soon .
There is ongoing development and testing, with a pilot programme potentially appearing before the end of 2026.
Some economists are criticising Trump for threatening the BRICS, according to a CBS News report, saying it makes the US look weak.
"It isn't a good look, as it indirectly elevates the stature of a non-threat and suggests a lack of confidence in the dollar," Brad Setser, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former Treasury Department economist, wrote on X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
US Justice Department's hardened efforts to denaturalise citizens is likely to violate constitutional rights
An aggressive new directive has millions of Americans who became legal citizens through the naturalisation process living in fear of having their citizenship revoked. The Trump administration wants to take away citizenship from naturalised Americans on a massive scale. Although a recent US Justice Department memo prioritises national security cases, it directs employees to 'maximally pursue denaturalisation proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence' across 10 broad priority categories. Denaturalisation is different from deportation, which removes non-citizens from the country. With civil denaturalisation, the government files a lawsuit to strip people's US citizenship after they have become citizens, turning them back into non-citizens who can then be deported. The government can only do this in specific situations. It must prove someone ' illegally procured ' citizenship by not meeting the requirements, or that they lied or hid important facts during the citizenship process. The Trump administration's 'maximal enforcement' approach means pursuing any case where evidence might support taking away citizenship, regardless of priority level or strength of evidence. As our earlier research documented, this has already led to cases like that of Baljinder Singh, whose citizenship was revoked based on a name discrepancy that could easily have resulted from a translator's error rather than intentional fraud. A brief history For most of American history, taking away citizenship has been rare. But it increased dramatically in the 1940s and 1950s during the Red Scare period characterised by intense suspicion of communism. The US government targeted people it thought were communists or Nazi supporters. Between 1907 and 1967, more than 22,000 Americans lost their citizenship this way. Everything changed in 1967 when the Supreme Court decided Afroyim v Rusk. The court said the government usually cannot take away citizenship without the person's consent. It left open only cases involving fraud during the citizenship process. After this decision, denaturalisation became extremely rare. From 1968 to 2013, fewer than 150 people lost their citizenship. They were mostly war criminals who had hidden their past. How the process works In criminal lawsuits, defendants get free lawyers if they can't afford one. They get jury trials. The government must prove guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' – the highest standard of proof. But in most denaturalisation cases, the government files a civil suit, in which none of these protections exists. People facing denaturalisation get no free lawyer, meaning poor defendants often face the government alone. There's no jury trial – just a judge deciding whether someone deserves to remain American. The burden of proof is lower – 'clear and convincing evidence' instead of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Most important, there's no time limit, so the government can go back decades to build cases. As law professors who study citizenship, we believe this system violates basic constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has called citizenship a fundamental right. Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1958 described it as the ' right to have rights.' In our reading of the law, taking away such a fundamental right through civil procedures that lack basic constitutional protection – no right to counsel for those who can't afford it, no jury trial and a lower burden of proof – seems to violate the due process of law required by the constitution. The bigger problem is what citizenship-stripping policy does to democracy. When the government can strip citizenship from naturalised Americans for decades-old conduct through civil procedures with minimal due process protection – pursuing cases based on evidence that might not meet criminal standards – it undermines the security and permanence that citizenship is supposed to provide. This creates a system where naturalised citizens face vulnerability that can last their entire lives, potentially chilling their full participation in American democracy. The Justice Department memo establishes 10 priority categories for denaturalisation cases. They range from national security threats and war crimes to various forms of fraud, financial crimes and, most importantly, any other cases it deems 'sufficiently important to pursue'. This 'maximal enforcement' approach means pursuing not just clear cases of fraud, but also any case where evidence might support taking away citizenship, no matter how weak or old the evidence is. This creates fear throughout immigrant communities. About 20 million naturalised Americans now must worry that any mistake in their decades-old immigration paperwork could cost them their citizenship. A two-tier system This policy effectively creates two different types of American citizens. Native-born Americans never have to worry about losing their citizenship, no matter what they do. But naturalised Americans face vulnerability that can last their entire lives. This has already happened. A woman who became a naturalised citizen in 2007 helped her boss with paperwork that was later used in fraud. She cooperated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was characterised by prosecutors as only a 'minimal participant', completed her sentence and still faced losing her citizenship decades later because she didn't report the crime on her citizenship application – even though she hadn't been charged at the time. The Justice Department's directive to 'maximally pursue' cases across 10 broad categories – combined with the first Trump administration's efforts to review more than 700,000 naturalisation files – represents an unprecedented expansion of denaturalisation efforts. The policy will almost certainly face legal challenges on constitutional grounds, but the damage may already be done. When naturalised citizens fear that their status could be revoked, it undermines the security and permanence that citizenship is supposed to provide. The Supreme Court, in Afroyim v Rusk, was focused on protecting existing citizens from losing their citizenship. The constitutional principle behind that decision – that citizenship is a fundamental right that can't be arbitrarily taken away by whoever happens to be in power – applies equally to how the government handles denaturalisation cases today. The Trump administration's directive, combined with court procedures that lack basic constitutional protections, risks creating a system that the Afroyim v Rusk decision sought to prevent – one where, as the Supreme Court said: 'A group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship.' DM First published by The Conversation. Cassandra Burke Robertson is professor of law and director of the Center for Professional Ethics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Irina D Manta is professor of law and director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law at Hofstra University in Long Island, New York. This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
It's Time for Digital Justice
The recent BRICS declaration on artificial intelligence marks a critical shift in the global digital agenda. In their joint statement, BRICS leaders reaffirmed each nation's sovereign right to develop and govern digital technologies, particularly AI, in alignment with domestic priorities and legal frameworks. They called for strengthened capacity-building, robust data governance, and technological autonomy, stating: 'We firmly support the right of all countries to harness the benefits of the digital economy… to develop capacities in AI research, foster technological autonomy and innovation, ensure data protection, and promote their own digital economy.' This affirmation is welcome and timely. Yet, in the face of growing digital inequality, platform gatekeeping, and regulatory imbalance, should we not be thinking about how to move beyond high-level diplomacy toward more tangible, enforceable measures? Perhaps the time has come to complement vision with action and to consider what digital justice might truly look like in practice. Across the Global South, from township entrepreneurs in South Africa to fintech innovators in Latin America, startup ecosystems remain stifled by structural imbalances in the digital economy. The current rules of engagement, largely dictated by dominant platform companies, are neither inclusive nor equitable. As a member of the SU20 Foundation and Alliance Task Force, I believe we must now reimagine global digital governance through a justice lens. This means embedding fairness, inclusion, and startup-led innovation at the core of every digital transformation policy and programme. South Africa has an important role to play. Not only must we advance our domestic innovation ecosystem, but we must also advocate globally on behalf of underserved regions still waiting to be seen, heard, and funded. The SU20 Digital Transformation Workstream outlines a concrete path forward. It proposes that we fund the Startup Fund at scale to enable meaningful participation in the digital economy. Emerging innovators must have access to early-stage, patient capital that prioritises inclusion and impact. It also proposes that we enforce platform compliance through regulatory agencies, ensuring dominant platforms are held accountable through effective, transparent, and independent oversight. Furthermore, the workstream recommends embedding public-private startup labs within digital transformation programmes. These labs can serve as co-creation spaces that bring together government, entrepreneurs, and civil society to solve real-world problems using local insight and scalable technology. Perhaps the most significant contribution of the SU20 agenda is the proposed Digital Competition Compact. This is a landmark framework that introduces new global standards for digital fairness. The Compact establishes that platforms must not be allowed to preference their products over third-party services. It affirms that fair and open API access must be guaranteed, ensuring interoperability and innovation. It further calls for digital procurement processes to be reformed so that startups and emerging market innovators are included as a matter of policy, not exception. This is not an anti-technology stance. It is a pro-market, pro-competition, and pro-equity proposition. When civic technologies or early-stage startups are denied platform access or squeezed out of procurement processes by legacy players, we are no longer operating in a free and fair digital marketplace. We are reinforcing monopolistic behaviour. South Africa has both the moral authority and institutional experience to lead this agenda. As a country that understands the long-term effects of systemic exclusion, we must ensure our voice is prominent in shaping global digital rules. We should be among the first to adopt and promote the Digital Competition Compact. We should build and scale our Startup Fund. And we should institutionalise startup labs as core elements of government-led digital reform. In doing so, we will not only empower our own entrepreneurs. We will inspire a shift in how the global economy values innovation from the Global South. Diplomatic engagement has laid important foundations. But as digital inequalities deepen and platform control tightens, we must now choose justice. Not as an abstract ideal, but as a measurable, enforceable, and globally aligned principle. The digital economy must serve everyone, not just the privileged few. If the next billion internet users are to thrive, they must be empowered as creators, not just consumers. The era of digital diplomacy has passed. This is the era of digital justice. Prof. Eldrid Jordaan is the Founder of GovChat and Suppple PLC, a Professor of Practice at the Johannesburg Business School, and a member of the SU20 Foundation and Alliance Task Force.
TimesLIVE
an hour ago
- TimesLIVE
Kremlin says Putin is ready to discuss peace in Ukraine but wants to achieve goals
Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to move towards a peace settlement for Ukraine but Moscow's main objective is to achieve its goals, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told state television in a clip published on Sunday. Peskov said that the world was now accustomed to US President Donald Trump's sometimes 'harsh' rhetoric but pointed out that Trump had also underscored in comments on Russia that he would continue to search for a peace deal. 'President Putin has repeatedly spoken of his desire to bring the Ukrainian settlement to a peaceful conclusion as soon as possible. This is a long process, it requires effort, and it is not easy,' Peskov said told state television reporter Pavel Zarubin. 'The main thing for us is to achieve our goals. Our goals are clear,' Peskov said. On Monday, Trump announced a tougher stance on Russia, pledging a new wave of military aid to Ukraine, including Patriot missile defence systems. He also gave Russia a 50-day deadline to agree to a ceasefire or face additional sanctions.
