President-elect Donald Trump recently announced plans to impose a 100% tariff on imports from BRICS nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—as well as their new members and partners, if they attempt to create or support a new currency designed to challenge the US dollar’s dominance. He further stressed that any country, not just BRICS members, pursuing such actions would face severe trade repercussions, including losing access to the US market (Reuters, December 1 2024). However, these bold statements appear less about instilling fear and more about reaffirming the reality that the reformation of the global order is accelerating—and everyone understands the steps that need to be taken.
Excluding the US population (approximately 350 million), the global population is estimated to be approximately 7.82 billion people, according to the latest estimates. This reflects a market size difference ratio of approximately 1:22.
This market of 7.82 billion naturally includes US-friendly nations, including those in Europe. While they may not yet openly oppose US foreign policy harming their own interests, many of these countries could already be contemplating whether now is the right time to begin charting a more independent path. As such, they are likely to take careful note of Trump’s recent announcements— forewarned means forearmed.
However, the BRICS club has recently undergone significant expansion.
In October 2024, during the summit in Kazan, Russia, BRICS extended partnerships to 13 additional countries—Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.
According to recent population statistics, the original BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—now account for nearly 3.3 billion people. With the addition of newer members such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates, this figure rises to 3.6 billion. However, when the 13 newly included “partners,” eager to explore opportunities for cooperation and mutual growth, are factored in, the market size soars to an impressive 4.6 billion.
This is significant. And even though many (mainly Western) experts would be quick to immediately jump to highlight the potential “complexities” and “challenges” associated with such expansion—stemming, in their view, from the need for BRICS to align diverse economic policies and political agendas among its member states—Emir Research has clearly demonstrated in “Navigating the BRICS Storm: Separating Signal from Noise” and “Bridging Horizons: Malaysia and BRICS Unite for Mutual Prosperity”, using data and economics, that these concerns amount to little more than noise rather than substantive issues.
Naturally, overwhelming BRICS membership requests simply reflect global recognition of two contrasting models: a seemingly “monolithic” block with restrictions and manipulation under a single hegemon versus a diverse and perceived as “unstable” yet moving in a graceful cohesion voluntary group driven by mutual interests and governed by consensus and shared sovereignty.
So, a market of 4.6 billion people is approximately 13 times larger than a market of 350 million—still a difference in market size of profound magnitude.
Importantly, the larger market has a significantly greater pool of not only potential consumers but workers and therefore greater capacity for innovation and knowledge creation.
Emerging economies (which make up the majority of these 4.6 billion market) often exhibit higher growth rates compared to mature economies like the United States. This provides super exciting opportunities for rapid expansion, especially in sectors like technology, infrastructure, and healthcare.
It is very obvious that if Trump were to impose his tariffs on these countries, they would have no choice but to retaliate, effectively closing off a market of 4.6 billion to the United States. In its current circumstances, this could fracture the US economy and further divide the nation—unless, of course, that is precisely the intention behind this manoeuvre.
It is also important to consider the nature of trade between these two markets. Historically, the US has benefited from relying on natural resources and commodity goods supplied by countries like those in BRICS, while in return supplying them with “paper” currency—effectively offloading its skyrocketing inflation.
Of course, the United States could still try to leverage its “economic sophistication” and high-tech offerings. However, even among at least these 4.6 billion customers (independent of their governments)—and potentially more globally—many are already actively reconsidering their reliance on US high-tech products. After all, who wants a car that could be denied maintenance services as part of a “sanctions package,” or a phone, tablet, or laptop blocked from downloading the latest software updates, or any other high-tech spare parts rendered unavailable due to tariffs impositions?
Moreover, it is becoming increasingly evident that even the edge of innovation is steadily shifting to the global South-East!
With all the above, if nothing else, a market of 4.6 billion currently has a far greater capacity to influence global trade norms, currency usage, and international policies compared to a smaller market like the US—unless Trump has a "trump card" of brute force to persuade them otherwise, which is highly unlikely.
In 2023, in the article “De-dollarisation: Elbowing USD in a Multipolar World,” Emir Research already highlighted the waning strength of the US military as a contributing factor to the weakening of the US dollar.
Well, things appear to be progressing on this front as well.
The fresh 2024 edition of the Index of US Military Strength indicates that the country has experienced a decade of steady decline in its military capabilities due to various factors including reduced funding and insufficient modernisation efforts.
Crucially, it concludes that while the US may still maintain the capability to defend its homeland, the country faces a “significant risk of failing to defend America’s vital national interests.” After all (as even the report states quite openly), the primary role of the US military has historically been to “impose its will on an enemy in defence of its nation and its vital interests”. This should be read as bombing Iraq to pieces when Saddam Hussein sought to trade oil in currencies other than the US dollar, or even in gold, or levelling Libya to the ground when Muammar Gaddafi pushed to establish a gold-backed currency to replace the US dollar in oil trade.
However, now it is clear that the US will eventually need to adopt a different language to convince its trading partners—one that embraces diplomacy, mutual respect, and an end to wielding trade, financing, investment, knowledge sharing, and technology transfer as economic weapons, as is currently “trending” in the world (refer to “Navigating the BRICS Storm: Separating Signal from Noise”).
Meanwhile, Trump’s threats to close access to the US market, despite their sheer absurdity, simply serve as a reminder to those who may not have grasped it fully yet—not only about the perceived toxicity of this currency but also the urgent need to swiftly diversify and deepen trading relationships with more reliable partners and robust platforms.
After all, Trump may very well know what he is saying. However, the question is whether everyone is truly listening.
Dr Rais Hussin is the founder of EMIR Research, a think tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research.
