Terror Dollar Baby
There’s fear in the streets of the collective West—a terrifying idea, a monster of unspeakable horror haunting the dreams of its leaders: the BRICS. And even worse, what they’re doing: dismantling the hegemony of the US dollar.
In July 2025, President Donald Trump told his cabinet: “The BRICS were created to harm us, they are designed to weaken our dollar and replace it as the global standard.” His blunt statement reflects a growing concern in the United States: the idea that the BRICS—once a loose coordination of emerging economies such as Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—has morphed into a bloc determined to challenge Western-led institutions and undermine American financial supremacy. The key question concerns the BRICS’ true ability to function effectively, given that their formation was neither accidental nor unexpected, writes Lorenzo Maria Pacini .
Their consolidation reflects a long accumulation of sentiments dating back to the Cold War and postcolonial struggles. The Non-Aligned Movement, founded in Belgrade in 1961, offered an institutional dimension to the desire of newly independent states to avoid being forced to side with Washington or Moscow. But neutrality quickly took on a different meaning, becoming synonymous with genuine autonomy, as in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru’s India or Josip Tito’s Yugoslavia. These countries aspired to sovereignty and freedom of action. A form of “neutrality against,” on the other hand, had less to do with independence and more with indirect opposition to the United States. In the 1970s, many governments claimed non-alignment while benefiting from Soviet support. These movements survived the debt crises of the 1980s, the collapse of the USSR in 1991, and the unipolar phase of the mid-1990s.
In the early 2000s, China revived this tradition by positioning itself as a spokesperson for developing countries, expanding its ties in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and advocating multipolarity as an alternative to Western financial hegemony. The continued centrality of the dollar and the unequal distribution of power in global institutions fueled this narrative, allowing the BRICS to become the institutional expression of these grievances.
Russia, shaped by the upheavals of the 1990s, saw the BRICS as a useful framework for its policy of resistance. Its role fits perfectly into the tradition of “neutrality against,” in which perceived non-alignment morphs into opposition to the United States—especially after the US sanctions of 2014 and 2022.
The establishment of the New Development Bank in 2014, the expansion of bilateral currency swap agreements, and the gradual promotion of yuan trade are tools intended to reduce the weight of the dollar, while presenting the project as reformist rather than revolutionary.
Brazil has adopted a more flexible stance. Its diplomacy continues to practice “neutrality for,” seeking to create space for advantages in the international system without severing ties with the United States or the European Union.
India, a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement, continues to espouse the value of strategic autonomy. Its rivalry with China, which intensified in 2020 due to the conflicts in Ladakh, limits its willingness to accept structures that enhance Beijing’s influence, even as it continues to invest in the BRICS framework.
The BRICS financial agenda—promoting trade in currencies other than the dollar, diversifying reserves, and establishing parallel institutions—turns the traditional sentiment of non-alignment into a concrete threat to US interests. Since the establishment of the Bretton Woods system in 1944, the dollar’s supremacy has formed the foundation of US global power. While the BRICS lack the cohesion needed to completely dethrone the dollar, they can provide political cover and an institutional framework for “neutrality against.” In doing so, they undermine the legitimacy of the dollar and the US-dominated international order.
All this terrifies the West, whose financial dominance rests on the dollar as the “universal currency” – slowly but surely being dismantled by the BRICS and the Global South. America is hiding behind a finger so small that the Hudson Institute felt compelled to dedicate an entire paper to the problem, considering what “effective” strategies can counter the BRICS and their damaging intention to ruin Washington’s monetary toy.
The BRICS financial agenda
According to the article, Washington’s global economic power rests primarily on the central role of the dollar and the dominance of the SWIFT system (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication)—the secure messaging network that connects banks worldwide. SWIFT allows the United States to monitor financial flows and facilitate sanctions, anti-money laundering measures, and counter-terrorist financing operations. This transparency distinguishes the dollar-based system from older, informal networks.
The BRICS, on the other hand, are seeking to establish channels that are difficult to monitor from outside, similar to—brace yourselves—the methods used by terrorist cells through hawala , the ancient money transfer system that originated in South Asia in the 8th century. Hawala operated through trust-based networks without centralized record-keeping or oversight, leaving few traces. Like hawala, the group promotes regulation of local currencies and alternative payment systems. The difference is that hawala relies on informal networks, while the BRICS are seeking formal coordination among major economies to create robust alternatives to dominant reserve currencies. For the US, this is a brutal blow below the belt, which has been very hard to take.
US control over the dollar and SWIFT is at the heart of its financial strategy. Historically, those seeking to evade US oversight turned to informal methods that remained marginal and could not compete with the dollar’s liquidity and reliability. The BRICS New Development Bank, China’s CIPS system, and the growth of currency swap agreements are coordinated attempts to create alternatives to dollar payments, shifting the challenge from the margins to the center of global finance. BRICS members remain dependent on dollar liquidity, but each summit reinforces the credibility of alternatives, while dedollarization shifts from an aspiration to a policy.
Washington’s ability to revoke SWIFT access—as it did against Iran in 2012 and Russia in 2022—is one of its economic weapons, but it has proven almost entirely ineffective because currency crashes have demonstrated that alternatives to the dollar-based system exist and even function. Countries that reject dollar hegemony are labeled “hostile” and deserve punishment. Financial sovereignty is not tolerated in Washington’s clubs.
The group has proposed several possible instruments to replace the dollar:
- National alternative currencies.
Some member states—particularly China—are seeking to expand the use of their currencies in trade. Beijing is using bilateral swap agreements and the CIPS system—its alternative to SWIFT—to expand the yuan’s trading area. Following the tightening of Western sanctions against Russia, Moscow and Beijing have settled a growing portion of bilateral trade in yuan and rubles, while India has experimented with rupee-based transactions.
- Barter and clearing mechanisms.
Some BRICS members already use such instruments. India and Russia have conducted transactions in rupees and rubles, and Iran has long relied on barter agreements to address its hard currency shortage. These systems can support economies hit by sanctions or financial difficulties, although they are difficult to balance or scale up—especially in multilateral contexts—while simultaneously weakening the dollar’s grip on the market.
- Digital currency.
The most innovative scenario involves cryptocurrency-based payment systems. Cryptocurrencies—particularly stablecoins—already function as a kind of parallel banking system in vulnerable or heavily sanctioned states, such as Venezuela or Iran. Stablecoins like USDT and USDC, which are pegged to the dollar, offer a store of value and enable fast, cheap international transfers. However, their relationship to American power is ambiguous: on the one hand, they compete with American financial institutions, and on the other, they strengthen the dollar’s influence by expanding its digital presence. A coordinated BRICS initiative, on the other hand, would aim to completely abandon the dollar. China has experimented with the digital yuan, while Russia has adopted a pro-crypto policy. The BRICS Pay project, which aims to manage cross-border transactions in local currencies, is still in its infancy.
Protecting the Gulf to maintain monetary power
The BRICS countries have identified the Gulf as a key battleground to challenge the monetary supremacy that has formed the foundation of American influence since the 1970s. As is well known, the US has built a true imperial system through the petrodollar, making the dollar the currency for oil transactions. But something is inexorably changing.
China is spearheading the partnership strategy by encouraging Gulf oil producers to denominate a portion of their sales in yuan. At the same time, Huawei’s role in shaping regional technological standards could lead to the creation of alternative payment circuits and data networks to circumvent Western oversight. Beijing has also encouraged the sovereign wealth funds of Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, and Doha to invest in yuan-denominated platforms, digital currencies, and blockchain-based trading systems.
Russia and Iran are also contributing: Moscow conducts energy, military, and financial transactions with Tehran in rubles and rials, making it less vulnerable to US sanctions. Iran keeps its economy running through barter, gold transfers, and crypto networks that bypass traditional banking channels. These parallel systems show potential BRICS partners that trade can take place outside the dollar’s sphere of influence, even under heavy US pressure. The goal in all cases is to reduce the Gulf’s dependence on the dollar and limit the reach of US sanctions, presenting these measures as a simple “rebalancing” against Western economic coercion.
The United Arab Emirates, a key US security ally and a major financial center, joined the group in 2023. This decision does not represent a rift with Washington, but reflects Abu Dhabi’s assessment that the BRICS offers concrete benefits at low cost. A similar logic applies to Saudi Arabia: although not yet an official member, Riyadh has attended summits, discussed selling oil in yuan, and launched investment initiatives with China. This openness by Riyadh and Abu Dhabi strengthens the bloc’s legitimacy and demonstrates that joining the BRICS is compatible with maintaining traditional security ties with the United States. This makes it more difficult for Washington to portray the group as marginal or inherently anti-Western; by drawing Gulf allies into their sphere of influence, China and Russia undermine the central narrative of the American financial order.
Empty recommendations
US policymakers are beginning to recognize the risk of parallel financial institutions. President Trump’s signing of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act laid the groundwork for controls to prevent the use of stablecoins to circumvent sanctions. However, in reality, such restrictions apply only within US jurisdiction, while most cryptocurrencies fall outside US jurisdiction.
Domestic regulation will not be enough to extend US dominance over these new monetary forms. The pace of financial innovation is too high, and the incentives for the BRICS countries to pursue monetary sovereignty are too strong to abandon their quest for digital and political alternatives. To preserve the dollar’s status—and with it, the United States’ ability to exercise global financial oversight—Washington will have to employ a combination of economic, regulatory, and diplomatic measures. Otherwise, it will soon be time to say, “Bye bye, Mr. Dollar!”
From an American perspective, any financial institution choosing to operate within a compensation system designed to circumvent SWIFT would lose access to both SWIFT and dollar transactions. For banks, the choice would be obvious: losing access to the American system—which processes the majority of global transactions—would be far more costly than gaining access to an alternative network promoted by the BRICS countries.
Washington has already attempted to warn states interested in joining the BRICS of the costs of supporting a project aimed at weakening the United States, through threats, retaliation, and tariffs. According to the US leadership, current members should be discouraged from participating in Russian, Chinese, or Iranian attempts to undermine the dollar’s role. But the “most powerful currency in the world” is now a distant memory, and none of the partners wants to risk missing the opportunity for a future without American hegemony. It’s clear: everyone is growing tired of this arrogance.
The dollar, ladies and gentlemen, is now irrevocably disappearing from the scene. For the US, defending its central role means preserving its ability to monitor international transactions and impose measures at will under the guise of “humanitarian operations.” If Washington does not act decisively to defend SWIFT, regulate stablecoins, exert diplomatic pressure, and strengthen the legitimacy of US financial oversight, the BRICS will continue to forge an alternative, antagonistic monetary order, presenting themselves as champions of non-alignment and multipolarity.
Happy ending for the dollar, friend!